New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-12-19
OFFICIAL JOURNAL ~rHx~s STATE LOUISIANA.
COURT RECORD.


COURT RECORD.
FRIDAY. DECEMBER Is, 1874.
supreme Court.
State OK rel. Seymour Van Dusen.-
Mandarin. against the judge Of the Superior
Criminal Court refused.
Superisr Criminal Court.
State ex rel. Seymour Van Dusen.-
Habeas corpus. Counsel for relatOr stating
that they having nothing further to offer to
stay proceedings, the motions were dis
charged and the prisoner remanded to the
cutody of the criminal sheriff, to be held
subject to the warrant in the hands OF the
sheriff of Natchitoches.
IMPORTATION FILED.
William Wilson-Burglary and larceny
on the twenty second Of October. at the
residence of E. +. Boumard, No. 33i Com.
mon street, where clothing to the val ne Ut
$500 was stolen.
Moses Harvey. indicted for the murder OF
Wright Patterson, in q gambling house on
Dryades street, on the evdhing OF Septe!n-
ber l3, was convicted of manslaughter.
Andrew Riley. assault with . dangerous
weapon, with intent to kill one Henry
Steven; not guilty.
NOLLE PROsEQUf.
Thomas Brady-Grand larceny; stealing
q watch at q fire in January. The watch
was found in possession of Brady, who
proved, however, where ne had bonght it,
Anthony O'Rourke-Arson; setting fire
Magazine street, November "a. 1873. No
proof to convict.
No more than six witnesses for the State
or defense shall be subpUnaed IN any case,
unless by special order Of court, granted
either in court or chambers.
First District Court.
vERDICTs.
George johnson-First, forcibly seizing
and carrying away, etc; second, taking
male child under fourteen years Of age
away without consent of parents, tutors.
etc. Guilty ON second count.
August Bugero Wantonlv bea ting q
COW, etc. Not guilty.
Barbara Olden-Larceny. Not guilty.
Solomon Brown and Jim Wlliamsr-Lar.
ceny. Guilty.
Sterling Williams-Assault with = dan.
gerous weapon. Not guilty.
xo1LE PRosEoCf.
Levi Oixon-Larceny.
Second District Caust.
Succession of Charles Lauer opened.
Fourth District Court.
Judge Lynch has rendered the following
Charles T. Howard vs.. E. F. Denechaud
and William Egan, constable, No. A. 2,557 i.
Fourth District Court, parish of Orleans.-
The plaintiff in this case alleges that in the
Third Justice Court for the parish Of Or
leans, E. F. Denechaud did institute . suit
against him for $40 25. on the fifteenth of
July, 1873, at which time, and since, plain
tiff owed said Denechaud nothing. and with
out any legal service Of citation, did proceed
TO take default and final judgment against
said petitioner for said amount, and without
any legal service OF notice of Judgment upon
petitioner, did cause the issuance Of writ
Of ieri tacias against him, TO said constable,
who thereupOn, on his own motion, and by
order of said Denechaud, did proceed to
levy said writ by seizure and garnishment
Of several friends and business acquaint-
ances of petitioner, 60 his great and serious
damage and injury in his business. and
to his business reputation and credit and
in his personal feelings: that tho absolute
nulllty Of all said proceedings Of said Dene-
ehaud and said constable was we'll known
to them when they took said proceedings.
and that said proceedings were taken BY
them maliciOuely and with the intention OF
AcITt1uuluR ulku OuU VI UuC AAVuuV OA o0lu
claim of Denechsud, BY preventing him
from making any defense against such de-
mand; that the said Denechaud and the
said Egan. couspiring together, did cause .
false return to be made upon the citation in
said case, to She effect that il had been
served upon petitioners servant, at psti.
toner's domicile; upon which false and
fraudulent return said defendants herein
based their other proceedings against peti.
- kn kNouy onuthiMn nf cham
until garnishment process had been served
upon his friends. Petitioner prays for judg
nent for the sum Of $500. Is damages,
against defendants in sOlidO.
The answer Of Denechaud 10 . general
denial and special denial Of malice and
fraud. The constable answers by gen
eral denial and Q call On Denechsud in
warranty.
The record sf the suit in the Third
Juetice's Court is in evidence. It discl0ses
the fact that Charles r. Howard was sued
in that court on tho fifteenth of July, 1873,
on claim Of $40 IS; that citation issued,
on which the constable made the following
seturn:
Received. Now Orleans, July Is. 1873,
and on the seventeenth day Of July. 1873.
served true copy of the within citation,
at the domicile Of tho defendant, Charles
T. Howard. on Prytana street, No. f3aa. in
the hands of Mr.. Joseph Lewis, above the
age Of fourteen years, residing there facts
which have learned by interrogating the
said Joseph Lewis), defendant being absent
from the city
A Judgment by default was entered. which
was afterward confirmed and made final.
Notice Of Judgment issued, and was served
in like manner as the citation, at No. i32
Prytania street. A writ Of fier; facias
iesued to the constable. Before the return
of the writ citations and interrOgatOries
issued 20 Pike, Brother & Co., the Louisiana
National Bank and the Bank of America
as garnishees. On the twenty fifth Of
August, 1873 Charles T. Howard applied to
the Third District Court for and obtained
writ OF Injunction restraining the execu
ton Of tho Judgment aforesaid. trial was
had, and the court perpetuated the injunc
ton. with an order to the justice court
to cause Q new citation 20 issue, and to be
served upon Charles T. Howard. l take
the Judgment of the Third District Court
to be conclusive proof OF plaintiffs
allegation that he was not legally cited
by tho Third Justice Court, and under
those circumstances the Judgment of
he latter court was IN absolute nuIlity.
and conferred no authority to seize the
property Of Charles T. Howard, either in
his own possession or in the hands Of
third person. But it 10 urged in behalf of
tho defendants that the Third District
Court was without jurisdiction Of the in
junction suit in which the invalidity Of the
citation and notice Of judgment was deter
mined; that that court can issue an iujunc-
tion only when necessary to carry out its
appellate jurisdiction; that the Third JUS
tice Court alone kad the authority to enjOin
its own Judgments; that the provision OF
section 2O3 Revised Statutes Of 1870, un-
der which The Injunction issued, il in con-
4iict with tho portion of article l26, c. p,
which defines the jurisdiction OF the Third
niaf rict Gourt and that when auch conflict