New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-04-20
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, APRIL ID, 1873.
Superior District Court.

Sldug hterhOu36 company VS.. marJln anu
Henry Micholas.-Petitione represents de-
PENDANTS are indebted to plaintiffs for
SIG. 1872 40 for the following penalties:
Violation of the first section of the charter
in landing and siaughtering twenty eight
beeves, $3.50 each offense; OF the third sec
ton in landing, yarding and keeping TWEEN
ty-eight beeves. $3.50 each otfense; of the
fifth section in using as a slaughterhOuse
other promises than those of the company
twenty eight beeves at penalty of 800: of
the seventh section in not paying the CON-
pany's fee of 81 each beef. and not deliver.
ing hOOts, horns and heads. thirty cents
each. all 20 the :ryeparabla injury Of com.
plaiuants.
State of Louisiana vs. Schmidt & Zeig.
ler.-On showing to the court that the de.
PENDANTS had paid their tax. ordered that
the injunction be dissolved.
State of Louisiana Va. WheeiOck. Finiav
& Coon showing to the court the tax of
defendants had been paid. ordered that the
rule for contempt be discontinued and suit
dismissed.
4. 7. Manning vs.. city of New Orleans
DevOlutive appeal allowed.
City of New Orleans w. Francois La.
crOlx.-New trial refused.
First DisIricf Court.
Hearing of motion for new trial. State
Va. Julia BrOoks.-Fixed for twenty fifth.
State vs.. John Roach. murdev.-Mot!On
to reduce bail denied.
State vs. Willard johnson larceny Sen.
tence: Eighteen months hard labor at State
Pententiary.
State vs. Washington Banks. larceny
Sentence: One year at haId IabOg IN State
Penitentiarv.
State VS. Thompson Bradley. assault and
battery Plea of guilty. Sentence: One
1av ir,p Parrish
State VS. Timothy Hays. mBrder.-Iotion
for new trial denied.
Mr.. and Mrs. Malior. on four charges of
receiving stolen property: Abra ham Beer.
charged with false imprisonment by Mary
j. Wagmsn, pleaded not guilty.
State vs. Pierre Dumas,-Asssult with
intent 70 kill. Verdict Of the jury: Guilty
OF assault.
State vs.. Frank Renaldo Entering a
vessel in the night time with intent 10 steal.
and assault with intent to rob. Verdict Of
jury: Guilty.
second District Court.
SUGGESTIONS of David MARQUEE. Pierre
How and Morris TObin opened.
Third District Court.
Judge Meuner has rendered the following
opinion, which is Of special interest to JUS
tees of The peace and and litisants IN this
court:
State Of Louisiana. erreiatione ". n.
Alternately. VS.. the third Justice OF the
peace for the parish Of Orleans. App!ica.
ton Tor writ Of mandamus.-The relatOr
alleges that he is the defendant in suit
now pending on appeal before this court
from the Third Justice Court for the
parish Of Orleans, entitled Joseph DuviS
neaud Va. W. NJ Alternately, No. u .49s on
the docket OF said justice court: that by
air Af at
| issued in said suit. his furniture has been
taken into and still remains in the posses
sion and custody Of the constable OF said
Justice court: that when said furniture
was first seized, the relatOr gave a release
bond payable to the constable, which was
set aside. on motion of plaintiff, Joseph
Duvigneaud. on the ground that said bond
should have been made payable TO the JUS
tice of the peace. and not To the constable:
that as the error ID making out said bond
was not attributable to the yelator. his right
was reserved him TO give new bond: that
before succeeding in finding security, the
suit OF Joseph Duyigneaud against him
lrelatOr) was decided before the court g}t0.
aud that on applying 90 the third justice
OF the peace and offering to give a bond
| according to law for the release OF his fur.
niture Professionally seized the said justice
refused. aud is still refusing 10 take said
DOHu-IueEtDN tle GtlttoE "a lLe
right granted him by law to have his pro
perty restored to his possession, and thereby
also refusing 20 perform the duty imposed
upon him by virtue OF his Office And the
relatOr praGs for wit of maQdamuS
directed 90 said justice OF the peace. order
ing him TO perform the duty imposed upon
HIM by law and to release the furniture pro-
yisonally seized. on relatov giving bond
according 10 article llS6 OF tao Code OF
Practice
In his answer, the justice say, that :he
petition OF the gelat0- sets forth no cause or
right tor She witt OF mandamus, in this.
that Judgment has been rendered agains;
him in the above stated suit Of Joseph DU
Vigue8ud W.. w. NJ Alternately, and that
alter Judgment no property professionally
seizeG can Oe released ON bond: and. further
answering. respondent pleads the general
ISSUE. and says that he has no right to grant
the release asked for by the relatOr.
This case presents three questions for fhe
consideration of this court: I. Has the rela
tor the right to bond, at this stage of the
proceedings. his property Professionally
seized! =. The suit in which The provisional
seizure has issued being no Y on appeal be-
fore this court, can the relatOr appl y 10 the
Judge q quo 10 bond said property }. l.
the mandamus the proper remedy 10 compel
the justice OF the peace 10 perform the duty
imposed upon him by law III q case like the
present One-that is, 20 accept % bond and
release the property professionally seized!
First-By article fl27 of the Code ~
Practice. any person whose property shall
have been seized, attached, sequestrated or
Professionally seized. shall obtain a restore
ton OF his property II he gives to the justice
ri the peace has bond. with good eecurlty.
IN double the amount claimed. to satisfy
the judgment that may be rendered against
him. There Is n" time. no limit fixed bv
law within which the party whose property
has been professionally seized. attached, or
srquestrated. must tender his release bond.
His right 10 bond the property seized Ia ali.