New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-03-29
THE COURTS.
Aunreme Court.

Eighth District Court, parish OF brIeanH.
Two appeals were taken from the iudsmen.
serein rendered against Jacot Strauss. One
was taken by she Attorney General. and one
~as taken by svecia! coGnse. appointed by
Che Governor.
The one by tie Attorney General was
taken on the Seventeenth Of May. 1877. and
SVas made ;e:urpable oA the !h!Td Monday
IN May.
counsel employed by the Governor, On the
eighteenth Of May. and was made return
able on the first Monday III May.
We are asked 70 dismiss the second APP
peal on the following grounds:
J. That al appeal having been taken OF
Behalf of the State Of Louisiana 10y tie At
SOrnev General of the State, and made re-
Suruable on tie third Monday of Nav. no
other appeal on behalf OF said State could
be taken pending the said first appeal. and
the action herein, taken thereafter in the
Tower GOurt Oh behalf of sad State. was
. and is null and void for want OF jurisdiction.
.. That no person ls authorized 10 appea!
On behalf of the State, except IN cases when
she Attorney General is unable OF unwilling
soac:: that such facts do not exist herein,
and, therefore, the Governor was without
power 10 employ counsel.
-. That the appeal was made feturnable
Slta day other than as assigned 0y law, and
40 reason existed therefor
This prOcee ding was instituted On the
twenty-fifth of April, 1872. The REALTORS
object Is to force the State Treasurer to
recognize as legal and binding debts of the
State certain warrants held by him. issued
by Wickliffe, and to cause them 10 be paid
Ont OF the State Treasury.
The warrants amount 10 within fraction
Of $4,000. The answer is, that they are
fraudulent. spurious. and that ;he .ndorse'
1Dents thereon are fOrgeres.
'b1,n ~ ypYaH an 40 son \. pF Nap
I: appears that other warrants. coming
into the hands of Auditor Graham. who
succeeded Wicklitfe, were marked by him
"corn:eTteit; that he could find no traces
G! their having been issued in the books Of
his office. and tina; he had examined many
Of tine parties il whose favor they puT.
ported to have been drawn. and IN whose
names they we're indorsed and that they
al DECLARED their signatures 20 be tOrgeries.
Notwithstanding which no one OF these
parties. although many of them are resi-.
dents and well known citizens of this city.
were ever examined as witnesses. nor does
Gny attempt seem to have been made 10
procure their testimony.
Judgment was rendered in favor Of the
reiatOr. as prayed for on tho thirteenth
May, and was signed on the the same day.
On the seventeenth May. the Attorney
General, intervening on behalf of the State.
moved for an appeal retuInabie on the
Shird Monday in May: that transcript Of
appeal was not filed on the return day. nor
was any application made 20 this court to
extend the Time in order TO enable hiH 10
bring IL up. and the REALTORS judgment has
thus in his opinion become final, and the
State is TO be saddled with the payment Of
$4,000, of which the whole. according TO
Auditor Graham and the Attorney General,
IL spurious. unless we MAINTAIN the APP.
peal taken by the special counsel Of the
l., Il, .
Libits US from doing.
Where there is a doubt az 20 the ;uris.
dictiOn of the court. we would maintain our
jurisdiction IN - case III which the whole
people OF Louisiana are interested. il this
~ere Necessary. in order 20 protect them
from what may be. and. as in tie matter
before US. appears to be a fictitious claim
GpOn the common treasury.
Bu: II this case we are no. called upon 90
40 40. The letter, as we'll .he spirit OF
the law. gives us the required jurisdiction.
J.. !: does not follow that because che
State has appealed. through the Attorney
General. that she can not appea! through
She Governor as we'll He clearly has the
right 20 appeal on behalf Of the State, and
this right can not DE taken away from him.
smply because another officer OF the gov.
erhmens has been before him, when he
;akss his appeal within the delays required !
by law. In this case the apyea! was taken
an ample time.
=. !! !s not legally eorrec. 70 say that no
person is authorized to appeal on behalf of
She State except in cases where ths Attor.
Hev General Is unable or unwilling TO act.
yhe prohibition is limited 10 the employ.
ment OF counsel other than the Attorney
Gensral by the Treasurer and Auditor, and
Sloes not exclude the Governor from doing
g..
5. There was good reason for extending
She return day from the third Monday OF
MAY. only few days after the Judgment
was rendered, until the first Monday in
November, that being the first return day,
after the first Monday il May. upon which |
Shis court would sit.
And we must believe that .ne Attorney |
General was of the opinion that these OBJ |
jeciions could not be well urged against the |
State, otherwise we take it for granted that |
lie would have filed his transcript OF appeal |
in time. lie must have believed that the |
appeal taken by him had been superseded.
for we can not believe that be could have
been guilty of the carelessness OF allowing |
q judgment to become final upon a claim
involving 80 enormous sum of money.
which claim he had denounced as spurious
and forged, and from the judgment recog-
nzing il 20 be valid he had appealed. lie
mUst have considered that the State was
protected by the appeal taken by its special
counsel employed by the government, and
The motion TO dismiss is refused
On THE MERITS.
Tho warrants upon which these proceed.
jngs are had were drawn by Wicklitie in
favor of various parties. They have come
into the possession of the relatOr He and
his employees say he got them il the usual
course of business. Employees in the Audi
tors Office say that they appear to be drawn
N the favor generally used by Wcklitfe,
and that they believe bis signature 20 them
genuine. This may all be true. But if
Wickliffe had no authority to draw the
warrants, the fact of his drawing them | !
would create no debt against the State If
they were uttered with the intention OF
the State, as is alleged in the {
answer, the treasury is not 10 be depleted 7
10 pay them, simply because they may /
happen 10 be in the hands of an innocent /
holder. Besides, something more than I
the genuiness of the Auditors signature {
and tho lawtulness of the issue IS required /
10 protect the holder, innocent though he
may be. Now, the warrants in question,
rs we have already stated, are all issued in |
avor of certain parties, and are therefore '
Inly payable TO these parties or to their or .
Ter. This Endorsement alone could transfer e
hem, they not being commercial paper; I
md forged Endorsement conveys no title. | a
And if they were made payable to the par o
les named, which parties were real cred 1
tors OF the State. and their signatures r,
hereon were forged, and the warrants had !
'een paid. she State would still remain the Ii
ebtor and would have 10 pay again. Now. a
he Auditor OF Accounts ,Graham, testities W
hat when these warrants came into his pos. {,
ession. he caused many OF the indorsers S
hereon 70 come before him. and they each 81
eclayed that their signatures were forge. b
les.
Under Ills state Of facts. and with :his III
violence before us, we can net affirm the Ell