New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-14

SATURDAY. JUNE 10, 1874.


X
eapsrlsr Distriet Csart.
Sanitary Excavating Company vs. Board
Of Health; -Mandamus refused
istrators Of New DEMONSTRATION alleges
the renewal Of . contract with Thomas
Pickles for the care and lighting Of the coal
oil lamps; that it was not awarded accord
ing to the charter, act No. of 1870, to the
lowest bidder: that it's extension will cause
. loss to the city of $1,000; an interest as Q
taxpayer and damage by the awarding OF
the contract, and prays for an Injunction,
which was issued on bond of $500.
second District Court.
Joseph Henry Castarede prays to be
emancipated.
Louisa Peltz opened.
Fourth District Ceurt.
Nelson Wilson We. Zachery Bruen.-
Plaintiff claimed $1,000 damages for having
been maliciously charged by defendant
with obtaining goods under false pretenses,
searched and trunks broken open. Verdict
for defendant.
Third District Court.
Judge Meunier rendered the following
decision:
State Of Louisiana ex relatione of M. F.
Fisk ct al. VS.. John l.. Laresche, Third JUS
tice of the Peace.-F. M. Flax and Annie
Courey, the REALTORS herein, allege that
Daniel Weaver has instituted suit against
them before the Third Justice of the Peace
for the parish of Orleans for the sum of
500; said sum claimed by him for the use
and occupancy by the relator of certain
building and premises situated in New Or
leans, said occupancy being alleged to have
taken place during the month Of January,
1873; that there ia no allegation of lease on
the part of said Daniel Weaver in his plead
ing before the Third Justice Court, nor is
there any allegation tending to establish
the relation of landlord and tenant, or any
prlvity whatever between the parties; that
said Justice Of the peace could not decide
upon the demand of said Daniel Weaver
without passing upon the question Of own
ership or title to the property. Realtors
further allege that they have excepted to
the jurisdiction of said Third Justice Court
ratiOsse n,atcrig, and that notwithstanding
their exception, Notwithstanding the utter
want of jurisdiction over the case above
mentioned on the part of said justice of the
peace, he, the said Justice, overruled said
exception and determined to entertain said
suit; and the REALTORS pray that writ of
prohibition issue, directed to said John L.
Laresche, Third Justice of the Peace, for
bidding him to take cOgnizance of the suit
of Daniel Weaver VI. +. N. Fisk and Annie
Courey, No. 2l66 Of the docket Of said Third
Justice Court. For answer to the REALTORS
petition. the Third Justice of the Peace and
Daniel Weaver both deny the allegation
contained in said petition, and say there is
no cause set forth therein sufficient to au-
thorize the issuance of the said writ of pro-
hibition, and they pray to be Eence dis
missed with costs.
Though the mere use or occupancy of q
house does not necessarily create the rela-
ton of landlord and tenant, yet the owner
is entitled, both in law and in equity, to
claim from the occupant the estimated
rents Of the property; Ii r. 279; 81 A. 743.
But it is commended on the part of the re-
lators that sach claim, growing out of the
relation of lessor and lessee between the
owner and the occupant, can not be judi
cially enforced before justice of the peace
without calling in question the title OF the
owner, which is title to real estate, and
that Justice of the peace Is, therefore.
without jurisdiction rationc materi@. And
in support of this legal proposition the
REALTORS rely on article 1908 of the Code
of Practice, which declares that ''the JUS
the right Of property or the possession of
an imm0vable is called in question, al
though the amount of the demand may not
exceed the sum of which they are allowed
to take cOgDizance." The Jurisdiction or
of the justices of the peace is
to be determined, first, by the amoant or
the object in dispute; second, by the nature
of the action; third, by the domicile of the
c. p. art. 1862 In the suit now
pending before the Third Justice Court,
of Daniel Weaver vs.. the REALTORS herein,
4 hoo 1o<< MIC mo oil 20 f!,a
ownership or to the possession of the house
and premises of which they have had the
adverse to said Daniel Weaver;
his action to enforce his claim of 500
against the REALTORS is, therefore, personal
action, which falls within the jurisdiction
Of the justice of the peace, as we'll on &C.
count Of its nature as on account of the
amount in dispute involved in the suit. If
the title to Daniel Weaver's property is
called in question in the above mentioned
suit, it is but cOllaterally and to be used by
way of evidence. The Judgment to be rem
dered in said suit by the justice of the
peace will settle only the right to sum of
money, and not the title to the property
which has been used and occupied by the
REALTORS herein.
Writ of prohibition refused. the REALTORS
pa ying costs of suit.
Numa Coils vs.. the Societe des Francs
controversy arises from a pre-
tended breach of contract. The plaintiff,
Numa Coils, alleges that on the twenty
sixth of December, 1873 he purchased, or
rather leased, from the Societe des Francs
Amis, an incorporated institution domicil-
lated at New Orleans, the use of res
Iaurant located at their hall, to enjoy the
same during four evenings flour soiree dan
santes), which sOirees were to be given by
said association, as follows, to wit: On the
first Of January, on the fourth and on the
sixteenth of February, and on Mardi Gras,
1874; that ON the seventeenth of February
asst, on the day of Mardi Gras, plaintiff
went to the expense of preparing for said
festival at said place, and purchased the
provisions and liquor necessary to his
restaurant, when, without authority of law
,r previous notice. the use of said restaurant |
vas taken from him by the Societe des |
plaintiff further alleges that |
laid association, by illegally taking from |
aim the use OF said restaurant, have caused |
Tim 800 damages at least, which he now |
,laims from the Francs-Amis. In answer |
10 plaintiffs demand, the defendant herein |
lied the plea of general denial before the |
Inferior court. On the trial of the case be- !
ore the justice court, a judgment having |
been rendered against the Francs-Amis for |
$50, these latter have appealed from that |
Judgment. Before this court, the defend |
lnts plead, as . peremptOry exception |
ounded in law to plaintiffs action, that the |
petition of said plaintiff and his pleadings |
disclose no cause of action. because they |
,ontain no allegations of putting in mora,
which is condition precedent to the re- |
,overy of damages for the passive violation |
# contract, which putting IN mora must |