New Orleans Republican., 1873-07-20
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY. JULY l9, 1873.
Auperior District Court.

ton; that 1t ID Oenenclal 10 tac STATE. ana
not detrimental to petitioner. Mandamus
refused.
Same vs.. same.-Prayer for an injunc.
ton.
J. Chapus vs.. same.-Prayer Tor an in
junction.
Citizens Bank VS.. same.-Prayer for an
Injunction.
Jules Gourdor vs.. same.-Petition sets
forth that the action of the Auditor in set
ting with the tax collectors cuts OF the
old creditors Of the general fund. and
quasi privilege given to those of 1873: prays
for mandamus against both Auditor and
Treasurer.
These last four cases were fixed for Tues
day, the twenty second instant.
Moore, Janney & Hyams vs. A.
Dubuclet and c. Clinton. - Petitioner
alleges the ownership OF warrants OF ; ls.3
to the amount Of $685.; that July ID, 1873,
he rendered the whole amount to the State
OF Louisiana at the rate of 5S1s cents on
the dollar: that the offer was accepted by
the Auditor directing the Treasurer to re-
ceive 1882 65 to the credit Of the general
fund; that this sum was offered the Treas
urer, and Immediately petitioner presented
said warrants and demanded pay ment'
which was refused; that the Treasurer
alleged he would not pay said warrants
otherwise than at par, and would pay no
warrants sold at the said auction; that it
was the duty of the Treasurer to pay: that
petitioner has right to remit any portion
Of the value of the warrants: that this Is OF
great advantage to the State. saving
$50 900: that the true reason OF the Treas
urer's refusal is that he desires to favor
| other claims. Prayer for a mandamus.
The ball was opened yesterday morning
by j. Q. A. Fellows, ESQ. who presented
| the authorization of Attorney General
Field to appear for the State in the above
cases, and also an appointment Of Governor
kellogg as Attorney General ad interim
| during the absence of Colonel Field.
In the case of Chapus, E. Filleul pre-
sented an authorization of Colonel Field TO
appear for the State Treasurer, to which
Mr.. Fellows instantly objected and filed
the answer of the Treasurer. Mr.. Filleul
| said the two powers did not conflict, and
| wanted to file his answer, but the court
| would not permit it. Mr.. Filleul persisting,
| asked that the court make a ruling to which
| he could except and obtain the opinion OF
| the Supreme Court.
Judge Hawkins declined az. by the ap-
| pointment of Mr.. Fellows, the Attorney Gen
eral was in court and needed no represent
atiye. Mr.. Filleul wanted to file his an
| wer and authorization but the court told
| him he was not in court at all. Mr.. Filleul on
receiving this legal chunk of old red sand
| stone sal down and subsequent proceed
| inys interested him no more.
Mr. Fellows filed answers for both Audit
| or and Treasurer, alleging for the latter
that there were no funds in the treasury.
| After some discussion the court said the
| question was narrowed down to the fact
whether there were any funds or nots
Anatole Briengue, Esq, representing MIR.
| Chapus, took the stand. On the sixteenth
| instant he presented himself to the Treas
| urer with his warrants and demanded
| payment of the warrants. The Treas
urer stated he would pay if he had
| the money Had heard that certain checks
| had been given to the Auditor. The Treas
urer refused payment. Mr.. Briengue filed
evidence that 1892 65. belonging to the
| general fund. had been offered to the
| Treasurer.
| Mr.. Fellows submitted all cases.
| Mr.. Rice did not purpose to submit the
case of Samuels.
| Mr.. Briengue further testified that he
| presented the warrants at twenty minutes
past nine, July Is: that there was no pre-.
concerted plan with Mr.. Dubuclet: never
| had any conversation about these war.
rants; had talked about the Auditors ac.
| ton: thought it was unlawful: Mr.. Dubu.
| clet was surprised when the warrants were
! presented.
Auditor Clinton, in answer to Mr. Rice.
| said: There had been collected by the city
| tax collectors for the general fund about
$500 900: from the country about $4,000:
! a large proportion was in warrants.
Mr.. Fellows wanted to know the object
| of all this.
| Mr.. Rice said he was going to show the
| Treasurer had the money.
| Mr.. Clinton-The tax collectors had their
choice to deposit the money in some safe
| institution or carry it home: they put it in the
| Fiscal Agency and gave him the certificates
| of deposit to be drawn by him in his indi-
vidual capacity; draws it when the settle
| ment of their accounts is concluded: have
not drawn it; had control Of no other funds:
| this was under his control at the time OF
sale: intended to sell these funds: did sell
| them: gave receipts for certificates OF de-
| post: Mr.. Colville, tax collector. has set
tied: gave his certificate OF deposit: Mr.
| Hyams was the purchaser: the deposits
were made in this manner to prevent this
| cash from coming into the hands of the
Treasurer, and to keep it till the settle.
ments with the tax collectors were made.
The court here said the matter was taking
| too wide range.
Mr.. ClintOn-Have not paid any OF this
| to the Treasurer. Tried to pay part.
| Tried to make the two tit 80 as not to en-
barrass the treasury and carry out the
object of the sale of july ID.
Mr. Rice wanted to prove by Mr.. Dubu'
clet that the money was technically IN his
hands. Ruled out.
The court said it had no power to touch
| money in the treasury.
Judge Cotton. representing. with MIR.
| w. II. Hunt, Messrs. Moore. Janney
| g. Hyams, addressed the court i'll a
| few remarks touching the financial condi-
| ton of the State and the plan OF the Audi
tor and the action of the ring whose efforts
| were to gobble up the last dollar the trea'
| sury had.
| In the matter before the court the co urt
| has already announced that 1t could only
| take into consideration the relief which
| the law warrants in that form OF proceeding.
| The law is well settled that mandamus
against public officer can only lie IN cases
| where the Dw directs an officer to do some
| act which comes within the range OF his
duties when be refuses to do or perform
said act. In the case of the State Treasurer
| a mandamus can only lie to compel him to
pay money out of the treasury where he
has the money out OF which the claim
| should be liouidated and refuses to pay.
The present cases are predicated upon
| demands drawn bv the Auditor Of Pubic
| Accounts against the State Treasurer tor
| money. Messrs. Moore. Janney 4 Hyams
asked the State Treasurer TO pay them the
| amount of their demand. The amount OF
their demand was less than the warrants
| specitied, and the objection urged by the
| Treasurer against the payment of this
demand seems to be predicated upon the
ground that the party wants his claim dis
charged for less sum than the lace OF the
warrants. That seems to be the only de-
tense urged. Evidence has been offered to
show that the Auditor of Public Accounts
has advertised sale of money to be paid
in warrants TO the lowest bidder. Inc
complaining creditors IN tins his case appeattto .tl
and offered warrants at 5sis cents on tne
| IAllar Tha hid was accented BY the