New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-11-23

| R,;th reservations in the 1orU "a 80 nro
,sa Otherwise Mr.. Taylor 1nsn' Ind
coed to the end OF ms see' ., the
fail utterly TO comply, Win any ,se Of the
| conditions. He would nave .no Che lease
| nropertv for the entire terM ~ ~ ,av;no
p; tbp doing ANYTHING and without pa9N;ins
ren, ne was released from tne ooilsa
s;on Of having rent by doing certain 'n ~ H.
! Ifhe is nermitted 90 run 10 the ehu y;
isase without complying with the aooi'lona'
hI;u.,;nns ,be stare would have 10 suni
toe ~ ali. The State required. uhuel snL
az, of 1867, that he should 90 thls WIN
within a certain time under penalty u ~,
| teiture of the lease. lhe pairS os ~
,akes n lease from the state ana ensas
do ANYTHING for the puoiio 'n.eioS 'oa,uv
in a Given time. necessarily anu 40 s"1l'
flrfa;ts his ricn: if he fails TO 90 80
| u;,Iin ,hat time. And j: is ONLY the Legis
$50 tbat can extend it from time to time.
The legislature has not done 1t IN TINS case,
and the lessee is bound by the stlpuldtiohs
~ ,ba act of 1867 If he should show that
he has COMPLIED with them ne viii DC dls-
CHARGED. He NAV be able to esta poish .na.
he has complied with the act OF low II .i nc
has done so he ought not seek 70 escape iti1
investigation into the matter, lof II ~ Shoo4u
turn out he has not done SO II with ~ :.
traud practiced on the State. Consequently
if the State allowed him to go on to the Ell "
of his lease without inquiring into the MAJ,
fer il NAV lose the entire revenues. anu
fail TO have any action or recourse "hd--
ever. see no hardship in Mr.. layiof oe-
ing required to answer the deIna1d.
The plea of unconstitutioDailty OF ife acl
of 1867 was an unnecessary one ior the ptf-
nose of this suit. The act OF leoo might DC
taken and the act of 1870, and emit the act
of 1867. The act of 1867 is mere extern
4. ,,,4f ~ for
tract it is not a contract OF Itself " nat
the constitution sought to do was to annui
this modification of the contract. ii there
was a contract here at all it originates out
of the act of 1866 The act of 1867 IS the
mere chan ging Of the mode of payment from
that of money to that OF doing work.
AS TO the constitutionaiity OF that act anu
that provision Of the constitution, consider
it in reference to the letter OF the constltu-
ton. 1t does not strike me Il apples IN
this case.
1t is we'll recognized principle Of courts
never to rush into constitutional questions
and declare laws unconstitutional where 1t
is not material to the issue under con-ldera.
ton. If this act be unconstitutional, GER
tain1v the act of the Legislature OF 1917,
which recognized the act of 1867, IS not IN
question at all. and the acts of 1866 and 1870
would be ample to protect the rights OF both
parties in this case. The act OF 1869 Is
merely regulative and does not change the
features Of the contract between the parties.
The obligations imposed there are renewed
in 1870. They might be passed for the first
time, in 1870, by a Legislature TO which
there was no question as to its constltu-
tlOndl power. SO 1t is a question OF no I'M
portance whether this act be void or nos, as
far as the parties are concerned.
] think that the petition shows a cause of
action. The plea Of res adjudicott is not
sustained. The exception will therefore be
overruled. and the party be required 20
answer
First District Court.
State SIS. Roset,e. alias Marie Esienne-=
Assault and battery. Bail increased to $500.
State VS.. John Norton Ittering forged
certificate, etc. Motion in arrest OF 5udg-
mcnt alDtalDed.
State VS.. Joseph May. alias Se:l-~Murder
Plea OF not guilty withdrawn and plea OF
guilty Of uan.iaughter entered
SENTENCES.
State vs. Moses Goodrich~-?. Entering q
dwelling house in the day time: :. Larceny
Three years in the State Penitentia
State VS.. Gustave Observation-Disclosures
and entering dwelling house in the night
time. armed with dangerous weapoHo
Hard labor in Che Penitentiary for life
serlng store in the nigh. time and LARCENY.
Ten years in penltentia4y.
State IS. Granville Drane~-Nct.t.sr
Verdict. guilty .: lareenys :wo y.a:s ~
State vs.. Charles Davis y. g.n.e.in. .
shop in the day time. :: Larceny. Er,..
count. three years: second c.un:. On. yea.
IN Penitentiary.
State VS. JOSEPH. ,H.'Iiu'i~ ana
p3liOiouSi y atti,,r ,irat oxl,r
IN the night Time, in which human ieinus
were usually staying. Hard labor in Penio
tertiary ~: lite. SuspeEsive appeal gra..t-
ed. re:ugnab!e Che third Monday =. De..la-
Dev..
:RIE !,L.s.
State -. Bully Elaacaar!-!...a.:. ..S
battery.
State IS. Salvador Achs--!.a.cenv.
Third Dis,rct Court.
Judge MeHH!.1 Las rendered .ae follow.
ny decisions:
State tx REL Pa,rics McGuin -. I 80.
Falls. first Justice Of the veac. 10. eh.. mar
sh "t Orleans.-Applica, ton Ger wits o,
'ertlorai' ANA OF prohibition. The ,.'a.oy
alleges tina: the iirst justice ~ the oesc. .oy
he parish %: orleans. ]. ". Falls. La.
assumed and usurped jurisdiction. il. :h..
''Its. Nos. POO. IGi anu 2!6. o. the docket
u his court. which suit. have been in.4i.ute,.
tgainst him by one Mrs. Catherine Warren
loitz. Further. selatos complains that a
;ldlM 1or S5UV growing out of The same
nam OF circumstances has been illegally
divided into three separate demands con.
AIMED N the thGee suits above men.ion.t.
or the purpose OF giving jurisdiction 10 .be |
a'd justice OF the peace. THAT he ha. -. :
;epted to the jurisdiction "f Che first jus. !
ice 8 court s0ttras "'ateri0. buc Una. ,L. !
Judge OF said sc1I: w,llfuliy and Illegally |
'ersiste0 in his assumption OF Jurisdiction
'oEtrary to right and public policy. AVID |!
eldt"r prays fos Nglts of prohit!tio, ana /.
rertloraris directed TO said first ,us'ica 81 !
the peace forbidding him from further .,r,. I
eedlngs IN the suits above Mentionedo ANA !
:" commanding hla4 20 bging up I,efore
MS court certified copies az she PROCEEDINGS |
lad in said suits.
Respondent excerpts a. first TO The p. !
ator's application on three grounds: / |
he plaintiff in the suits Nos 2lGO. 2l6l and |
lt2 OF the docket Of the First Justice |
Joort las not been made party to this uro.
lbltlon SUIT, as required by law.
Neither the writ of certlorar nor the writ
L prohibition lie in this case, the REALTORS
emedy being by appeal. Tuen answering
Il The merits, respondent AYERS that The
hree suits above mentioned have been in,
tltuted before the First Justice CONF
gainst the rcator by one Mrs. Catherine
arenholtz, through her legal adviser. 70
ecoVer damages caused to her by the acts
the relator, which acts were committed
t different tines and places, and have no
citation or connection with each other. so
Il as respondent can ascertain from the
zee i:1 OF the papers on file in his court; that
'lllnS 10 hnd any law sustaining the re-
tGol exception TO the jurisdiction OF the
lrst Justice Court, rati1ue 1,air,,;,1 no
Verruied It; and said justice pravs 10 he
ence dismissed. After considering the OK.
options filed by the RESPONDENT heron -
40 REALTORS application, am Of tie n,in'
u that the first ground assigned in s,iJ
Nceptions is well taken and must nrpvair
rtic!e $40 Of the Code Of Practice Gsora..,