New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-01-29
,enth Judicial District of the State of Lou

| teenth Judicial District OF the State OF Lou
| isiana.
| Senate bill No. 246, entitled an act fixing
| the time of holding the district court in the
| Fourth Judicial District of the State of
Louisiana, comprising the parishes OF st.
| Charles, ST. John the Baptist, st. James and
Ascension.
Senate bill No. ll3, entitled an act to in
corporate the Bank of Delta.
Also, that the House has indefinitely
postponed Senate bill No. 23l, entitled an
act to amend and re-enact section $50 Of the
Revised Statutes OF Louisiana, 1870.
Very respectfully,
JOHN w. ROXBOROUGH,
Assistant Clerk
QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGES,
Mr.. Burch made personal explanation .
sending the New Orleans Picayssne to the
Secretary's desk, and directed the reading
OF certain paragraph relative to himself,
therein published. After the reading of
the came, MIR. Burch explained his reasons
fox his actions in the Senate.
Hr. Blunt made personal explanation
relative to the correction of the journal.
in recording his vote upon the funding bill,
declaring tina. he voted against laying his
own motion on Che table.
The president ssdsrei :he correction 10
be made.
PETITIONS lNfs MEMORIALS.
Petition Of the citizens of the parish of
St. Martin. protesting against the confirma-
tion of Unesiphore Deiahoussaye. ST., az
tax collector, and OnesiDhore Delahoussaye.
Jr., as sheriff of said parish.
Referred to che Senator of the tsistric:
composed of the aforesaid parish.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES,
Mr. Anderson chairman Of the Committee
on Judiciary submitted tho following rec
port on Senate bill No. 800, entitled an act
70 abolish the Superior District Court for
tho parish of 0rleans, to provide for the
exercise of the jurisdiction previously held
by 10 and and for the transfer of the cases
and records of the said court
Reported by substitute.
Mr.. Crawford submitted the following
minority seport from the Committee on in.
.liciary:
COMMITTEE ON JUpIcIAR9
New Srleaus January %. 1874
The undersigned member of the Judiciary
Committee Of the Senate, respectfully SUBJ
substitute to bill No go of the Senate to
abolish the Superior District Court:
By article eighty-three of the constitution
there were created for the parish of Or
leans seven district courts, until otherwise
provided. The First is the criminal court.
the Second the probate, and the Third court
ot appeals from justices of the peace the
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh were
courts OF concurrent and general juIisdics
tion, each one having the same right to
grant Ill functions, mandamuses and writH
of quo warranto. 1t was soon discovered
after the conrts were organized undeS
the constitution, that this concurrent ju-
risdiction Of the four last named courts
was calculated to produce. and did pro-
duce, great confusion among the courts,
ami operated injuriously; one court would
grant an Djunc ton, Inandamus or quo war
ranto, and another one OF those courts would
grant some writ lii conflict with the pre-
viously granted writ. and as each court had
equal and concurrent jurisdiction there was
no power to decide between them, hence
the confusion and acrimonious feeling it en-
gendered between the judges. To obviate
this difficulty, in 1870 the Legislature en-
acted the Eighth District Court, which, by
the act of 1873 was abolished, and the Su-
perior District Court created in its stead,
with power more sufficiently defined to car
~ out the above purposes, which will ap-
pear DY tine lOllOWlnS paragraph:
THAT the Superior District Court shall
have exclusive jurisdiction to issue writs of
Injunction, mandamuses, quo warranto,
and entertain ali proceedings and to tyy all
eases Or actions in which the right to any
office, State. parish or municipal. is in any
way involved Also, exclusive original
Jurisdiction over all cases or proceedings in
which the State OF Louisiana, the municipal
Of the city of New Orleans,
-h. I'd of af iii
Of School Directors, or any cooperation es-
Jablished by the General Assembly, shall
De party or interested
The objects for which this court was
,reated have been fully attained by this act,
md there is no longer that conflict of juris~
fiction between the courts SO injurious to-
itigants and irritating and troublesome to-
he judges, and the same cases are tried in
his court that would have to be tried in
ome other court, subject to revision on ap-
PEAL to the Superior Court: there is no such
thing now as the plaintiff selecting from
bmong the courts the one before which he
night think, from friendship of the Judges
PREVIOUS rulings OF the court or other causes
e might think he would have the sctvan-
age, which was done before the Superior Dis
rict Court was created, in the class of cases
made exclusively cognizab!e in that court,
Which Is correcting "a great abuse and plac
ny both parties before court not of theis
election.
Now, this bill proposes 20 remit us back
o the condition of things existing from
o0o 10 1870 in this regard. Our former ex-
erience is to go for naught. Certainly no
erson familiar with the confusion existing
a 1870 could desire to return to it.
The difficulty existing in 1870, before the
-lghth District Court was created, can not
70 obvlated Wts.n several courts exist have
~ concurrent Snd sqnas jurisdiction; the