New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-12-25

! Of New Orleans and Louis Schneider, Ad-
! ministrator. vs.. Judge of the Superior Dis
! trict Court and w. e. Murphy.-The city
! alleges that w. Z. Murphy as transferee Of
the clerk of the Superior District Court ID
! attempting hy an injunction to collect from
! the city the coets in a large number OF tax
cults in vioiStion OF act No. Of 1870. which
! prohibits the issuance OF any summary pro
! cess against certain officers of the city.
| 90 enforce che pay nent IT money from the
I city.
! R.lsfore moved g. dissolve che Injunction
end excepted o. the Jurisdiction o. the
| court. Motion and exceptions were over
ruled. and injunction allowed 20 remain IN
l force. RelatOrs ask for a writ OF prohibl-
ton against said judge and Murphy:
| Deienda ants answer that the injunction
I issued in eccOrdan nee with law and il not IL
| violation OF Che act invoked, and they con
I tend that as the injunction has not been
| tried and no alignment rendered frOie which
| may be an appeal taken. the writ OF prOhl-
l bition does not lie. This is the doctrine an
I nouncei in the case OF State OK rel. u MeZa
"a. the jndge Of the Fourth District Court,
! q Au., l23, which this court has followed
! since. We have invariably held that suI
| Jurisdiction can only attach BY appeal prop
/ eriy taken, and that We have no superSls-
ory control over the inferior tS;bunai-.
Application refused, with costs.
Ne. 1915 Mrs. Emile Delaronde, widow
} of Pierre Hod, appellee, va. William BSgsl.
| From Sixth District Court Claims to:
DANA ges for 9 frivolous appeal, the judy
ment, interest and costs having been pai"
pending she appeal. Th~ sum claimed IS
not within jurisdiction u shis court. LAp'
peal dismissed.
No. $3.50. Mrs. Mary Hardy vs. John 4.
] stevenson. appel.ee.-Suit Tor $l5,OoO daun-
| ages and monthly allowance u $3.50 from
1 April &c, 1859, 10: bringing up chlld.
Judgment fox defendant. Apcaa! dis
Missed.
On netior &. dismiss appeal. Judgment
! was r-ndsre; al the district court on May
| 81 1873. and appeal taken by motion in
omen cou,, on Nav %. 1874. Appellee move.
TO dismiss appeal, on the ground that it was
taken on motion at q different time from
that IN which the Judgment was rendered
| and NJ citation issued and served.
The court holds that the judgment haviE 9
been rendered at q different time from that
as which the appeal was taken. the appeal
I could only be taken by service OF petition
and citation Of appeal. and heIca the appea'
is dismissed.
! No. s34e. Stats * rel. Pas Clarke y.
Jn,!pe of the Superior District C0urt.~lh ne
c:ty nf New Orleans, on the ninth of Sep
tember. instituted suit against relator Il
remove his dairy from its present location
"a a nuisance and for 5000 damages. A
| preliminary injunction was granted, and NJ
further proceedings seems to have been
taken. On September 20. in q snle tol
contempt. the judge OF the Superior Distrlc
Court rendered Judgment ordering PA
Carrie 10 COMPLY with the Injunction, an'
GA bis failure to do go, that The civil sheriff
be ordered to enforce the order ct rou.
| and ahate the nuisance ut the expense o
tsaid Clarke. From this Judgment the rei:t
| tor was denied an appeal, and obtained II
| 1h:s court mandainus, upon which the ca,'
ia now presented for examination.
! In the order of the judge he virtually s!e
| cided the case. He says that he refused
| the appeal because there was no appealahl'
interest shown by the relatOf; that thu
| order con, planned OF in no wise affects sh'
| urorer,y and rights of the relatOr, bnt sim
| nlv directs the sheriff to abate d nuisance
kent by relator. Thus ths Judge gegard
the suit as being disposed OF.
The REALTORS interest in the matter beln!
shown TO exceed $500. W: think he is enti
tied t., sn appeal. Nandamus made
perenpfory.
No. 1851. William Golding -. John Petit
From Fifth Dstrics Court. Defendan
anpeals from q Judgment for $500. ZEN
de.ed tv Il sp.cial jury sgainst him. To-
breact, Of contract made with the plaintiff
| when he was employed in 1866, for 5 5000, u
furnish him an engine. iepalr The boiler
etc, at Bayou ST. Louis. The fepalrs were
made. and materials and machinery de!i'
cred, except the engine. which was noc He
livered because, ia violation Of contract
defendant failed 70 indicate the place %
delivery and pas the iIstallmeas Ut s.!o'
on delivery.
Tn, objections were. chat eeve'sl juror
were not registered voters, and that the
special Jury WAS not composed OF persons
who know enough 81 the business - des1It
Ssction .i35, Revised Statutes, provides
d. At in tie courts OF the First Judicial Dis
trict. special jaries may be summoned when
ever the judg 90 shall be ot opinion that the
m ,ttars to be submitted are OF such nature
az 20 rec ure information peculiar to &C rtali
occupations OF professions, when at the re-
Quest of either party the Judge may SUM
mon a sufficient number of jurors OF said
occupation for deciding the case.
The Jurors had such information. but no.
being 1na,tied electors under section 2i.D
Revised Statutes, they were nos SoinpeIehs
iurcrs in this State.
The TWO sections Of the Revised Statutes
quoted must be constructed together. Eass
remanded for new trial.
No. sos. r. Duperris vs.. J. w. HalliseT
E. Benjamin & Co. garnishees.-Fsom the
Fifth District Court.
If firm only Is cited as garnishee. che
firm only need aus wer to the interrogauoriee
and any member thereof may make oath
and sign the firms name. II tn. separate
answer of each member is desired. citation
must be served On each member. +. BEN
! iaE.in had signed the answer of the hrn!
when the citation to the firm had been
served upon Louis Benjamin. r,,le was
made absolute, taking the interrog atories
pro eoaJesso, against Lons Benjamin, aud
| coudemning him to pay the amount OF teri
! facias because he failed to sign the answer
TO the heterogeneous also. From this Louis
Benz amin appealed.
! .Jodcment snnulled, and rule against
| Louis Benjamin set aside.
| No, 1896. John 7. Bailey & Co. vs.. Lacey.
Terry g. Co.-From Eighth District Court.
| Plaintiffs having Judgment against defend
ant. in soldo for S2979 GO issued execution.
and made L II. Terry, ore of defendants, a
party garnishce, prcpcunding to him certain
| Undergraduates. II,
| This was excepted to on the ground that
| L. II. Terry. being one OF the defendants IN
execution, liable in soil with the others.
was not a third person and Could not DE
gArnsheed. The court overrules the ex'
ception, and l.. II. Terry appeals. The sp
| peliant could in no sense be garnisheed as
a third party. C.. p, 24G. Judgment an
| nulled and punishment dismissed.
| No 540i. State Of Louisiana ex rel Mrs
| w. p. Noble vs. Charles Clinton, Auditor
| etc: the State of Louisiana, intervenOr.-
| From Superior District Court. Relator
| appeals from judgment refusing to make
| p.remptOrv the mandamns sued out by her
| to compel the Auditor t. issue to her q
warrant for her appropriation BY act No.
| IFS of 1874