New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-12-16

and blazed away, the first shot killing
Chico on the instant. 1t 10 the old story
over again, Italian revenge; and there will
never be any explanation. Girag0 managed
to escape, but it is possible that he will be
arrested soon.
COURT RECORD.
TUESDAY, DECEMBER IL. 1874.
United States supreme Court.
The following cases were disposed of
yesterday:
No. 81. Lewis va. Cook.-Appeal from
the Circuit Court for the District of Louisi
ana. In this case the court holds that
merely legal title is sought to be enforced,
and although the objection was nowhere
taken in the case, it is nevertheless noticed
by the court, and the cause remanded with
directions to dismiss the bill as not sus-
tainable in equity. Mr.. Justice Swayne
delivered the opinion.
No. 1874. United States va. rillalonga.-
Appeal from the Court Of Claims. In this
case it is held that factor who received
cotton or made advances upon 1t, was not
thereby constituted tho owner Of the prop.
erty in such sense as to enable him to re-
cover the proceeds out of the treasury IN
der the captured and abandoned property
act; for it is said if he we're to be SO re-
garded through him a. their agent, dislOyal
owners might recover such proceeds, and
thus evade the act OF Congress giving the
right Of action, which special act provided
against recovery by any one who had given
aid and comfort to the rebellion. Re-
versed. Mr.. Justice Strong delivered the
opinion.
John L. villalonga was in possession of
certain cotton As factor, in the city of Sa-
vannah, at the time Of it's capture by the
federal forces. He had made advances on
this cotton to the extent Of 81, 600 in Con-
fsderste money. The cotton was seized by
the federal army. turned over to the treas
ury agent, sold by him, and the proceeds
paid into the treasury. Fur these proceeds
Villsl0nga sued in the Court Of Clsims,
which court held that in virtue of his pos
session he was entitled TO recover the pro
ceeds less the advances made by Villalonga,
and that his special ownership was mess
ured by the value of these advances. Judg-
ment OF the Court of Claims was for
$50.
Error to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
In this case the court held that the Ordi-
nance Of the city of New Orleans imposing
levee dues ON vessels which stop at the
wharves Of the city or moor in the waters
of the Mississippi river within the city
limits, is not compensation for the use Of
the wharves, but tax upon such vessels
for the privilege of landing or mOOring, and
thus viewed, as the Assessment OF tax is
measured by the tonnage OF vessels, 1t falls
directly within that clause of the c0nstitu-
ton prohibiting State from laying such .
duty without the consent of Congress. 1t
proceeded that municipality building
wharves and piers for the use of commerce
may properly require some compensation
from vessels using them> but it is said that
in SO doing care should be taken not to 60
beyond the sphere of State authority as
limited by the federal constitution. Re-
vereed. Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the
opinion. ..
Watson vs.. Bauderton.-To the Circuit
Court for the District Of Louisiana. In this
cause the court holds that the law OF Louis
lana requires actual seizure of property to
be sold by the sheriff under fieri facias, and
that where the seizure was by notice thereof
posted ON the courthouse it was insufficient,
and no title passed to the purchaser at the
sale, and this Notwithstanding the fact that
the defendant in The proceeding was at the
courthouse and raw the notice. Reversed.
Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion.
/ Superior Districs Court.
James L. Swan Vs. city of New Orleans
TIE Mexican Gulf Ship Canal Company
were directed by statute to perform the
work and excavation necessary for the
drainage system OF New Orleans, and the
Administrators and surveyor laid down the
plan and particulars which included the
widening Of the canal opposite to or pasS
ing by the property OF plaintiff.
All this was in accordance with act No.
81 Of 1871. If that act was valid, obedience
to It was no tort on the part of the city OF
New Orleans and gave plaintiff no cause OF
action against it. If, in performing the
work, the street opposite Mr. Swans prop
erty was necessarily rendered impossible, q
question may arise whether the company 10
or ia not liable, but it is not iDferrable
that the city is. No action by injunction
was taken either against the company or
the city to prevent the obstruction, nor was
any legal means taken to compel them TO
remove promptly the excavations OF the
canal. To submit without such effort is
tantamount to submitting OF acqulescing ~
the injury and its continuance.
The principle and precedent OF thls suls II
sanctioned by the courts, would encourage
speoulative litigations against the city Oy
all property holders along the line OF pubic
works or city improvements.
In this case the plaintiff does nos seem
to have been deprived OF access 20 Dis prop
erty az other avenues OF approach existed:
The case of p. H. Morgan vs.. the CITY OF
New Orleans, decided by this court come
time ago, is not parallel ease to the one
at bar. and 10 not, therefore, precedent
for this case. Judgment for defendant:
State ex rel. J. j. Hayes We. city ct New
Observation-Disclosures for defendant.
Superior Criminal Ceurs.
State ye. Richard Bell and John Jones.-
Nuydes. On trial.
f tsirss District Court
.t 1NFoRMAuoNe FILED.
Receiving stolen property-Joseph spor'
tuna, Peter Shepherd,
Petty larceny--Laurs Harris. Henry
Franklin.
ASSAULT. e,c.-Edwa-d Sotun.
Keeping disordegly brothe!-Jui'a Ar
buckle.
Petty iarceny-Joseph Weber. Moses vii.
liams, Alphonse White.
SENTENCED,
.joseph Weber-Larceny, one nooth.
Second Districs Court.
Laura J. Gruber prays to be emancipated.
Succe ssions of TheopAilus Nash and +.
NJ. Fisk opened.
Fourth Districs Courts
Charles f. Estlin We. Elizabeth Becker
and William Foley, constable of the Sixth
Justice Court, and securities.-Judgment
for plaintiff on prayer of petition that the
seizure Of household and kitchen furniture
under the value Of $500 was illegal. Dam
sixth District Court.
Charles ID. Hubbard vs. A. II. May
Plaintiff alleges that at P. NJ, December
10. at the corner of St. Charles and st. 10
seph streets, he was without provocation
accosted, assaulted and felled to the earth,
in defiance Of law, by defendant, who is q
man of large wealth, and bodily and men
tally injured to the amount OF $tV.VoV, 1or
which he prays Judgment.