New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-01-06
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1879.
Supreme Court.


4, The court has directed certain cases, con.
tinued by preference during the last cOur:
week, to be fixed for trial on the first three
days OF the week commencing January 10,
at which time appeals from the parshes OF
st. Charles, st. John the Baptist, st. James.
Ascension, Assumption, Latourche and
Terrebonne are returnable.
The following decisions were rendered:
BY JUSTICE TALAFERRo.
No. 1920 State ex rel. Z. B. Benton ct
a's. vs.. Judge of the Superior District
gCOurt.-ApplIcation for mandamus. The
slefendgGlt refused a suspensive appeal from
an order direct the REALTORS company to
produce their books. To the rule nisi the
she defendant answers that the case has not
been tried on its merits; chat the order was
issued according to articles lao. AL and 443,
Code of Practice; is interlOcutOry; that be.
cause defendants, and not the AccOmmoda.
ton Bank. sought the appeal the latter is
2Iot q party to the suit. From an examina-
ton of the record. we think the appeal
should have been allowed. Rule made alb.
solute, and defendant required to grant a
suspensive appeal on bond.
No. 1896 State ex rel A. L. Stack. appel.
CANT, VS.. +. A. Hall.-From Fourteenth Judi.
Sial District. The law not having been
compiled with in making the appeal return
able ut the proper time, it is dismissed. See
Ingram vs. Doherty, II A. ia; State ex rel.
Bandin vs.. Clay, - A. 500; State ex rel.
Bovee W. Heron mot vet reported;
No. Ash. State of Louisiana vs. Gaetano
Rosa, appellant-From First District Court
of Orleans. The exception that the Attor-
ney General put leading questions is over.
ruled on the ground that the witness had
endeavOred To evade the process Of the
eourt and was an unwilling one. The recon.
mendatlOn tor mercy was mere surplusa 20
to the verdict of guilty. State ys. Bradley.
d A. $50. Judgment affirmed.
No 4795 Stephen Z. Sterling :s. Parish
of West Feliciana. afpellant.-From Sew.
g'nth Judicial District Court. Suit in police
jury warrants, the answer being that there
sire no funds; that they were illegally is.
sued, being bills of credit; and prescription
of tive Years Police juries can ouly exer.
else the functions specially given them.
They can not put in circulation negotiable
Instruments of any kind without express
eIower. No special act has been shown Civ.
ing such power to this parish. The cases Of |
Breaux and Morimeaux vs.. paylsh If Iber.
elle, % A., 25l, and Edwards We. parish of !
gossier, "a A., 459, are applicable to the f!
casa at bar. The warrants were issued
without authority of law, and are null and |
.oid. Judgment reversed.
No. 4770 kendig g. Co. vs. city OF New |
Orleans, experimentation Superior District |
Court. Injunction appealed from dissolved |!
S.nd dsment annulled.
BY JUSTICE HOWELL
no. 4777e J. w. Cannon, appellant. IS.
city of New Orleans From Superior Dis.
:rict Court Plaintiff epjoined the collec.
eOn If the levee dues on the Robert E. Lee,
and Judgment was rendered against him.
He claims the ordinance is contrary to the
s.riicle of the federal constitution giving
Slower to Congress to regulate commerce.
The points raised were disposed of in First
Municipality vs.. Peace, A., $40; see also
3 r., 49,; Wheat, 235. The charges com.
sained of are not in conflict with any fun.
damental or statutory law Of the country.
Sud gment affirmed.
stNo. 1914 State of Louisiana vs. Mr.. and
Mrs. Jacobs, appellant.-From the Second
sJu iicial District. The court did not err in
excluding juror who had conscientious |
Ecurples against the intiiction OF capital
punishment in the crime Of arson when no |
sife WAS lost. IL A. 81, 2S3, 535. 6S5: 10 A.
20; II A. $40. Nor in permitting State
syi ness to contradict document in.
Produced by the States But the permitting
I'll an impeaching witness of the defense,
who was ordered to stand aside having said J
Se syas ignorant of the general reputation
Ns the Stale witness to answer question
Sf tho Attorney General was erroReoGss
New trial nrderede
. No. 1919. Rhods L. White y.. :iv-a
Clark Ganes.-Fcom Fifth District Court.
Santih obtained Judgment in she lswe.
s"nrSs and n suspensIve appeal waa al.
S,Wed. the Judge then refusing to further |
execute, on the ground that appeal STAYED
She proceedings. The plaintiff then applied
80 this court for a mandamus, which - .ee !
su~eSs J.
% JUSTICE weLYe !
*. 800 State ex REL Richard Tavlo: IS.
Suige If Superior District Court-The re.
lator applies for mandamus to comrel the |
reeas. on bond of the New Canal. That a |
siefendant may release os bond his property |
s.questcred L. 10 longer an open question. |
He can appeal from the order refusing it, |
n. ). A.. The respondent contends the
right to release applies only TO cases under
Ar icl- 20 of the Code of Practice. and a
,.unt.stratIon ex officio under article IA of
IL Code of Practice can not be. Article
Z .hof the Code or Practice, permitting
defendant to bond an order of sequestratioD, I
xcept in case of failure, means what it !
avs. IL is not limited by article 27J. Man 2
'amus luade peremptory. I
NJ. S0Ji A. 7. Field and Jesse r. Ponder, p
,,pe,laut-. vs. John l.. Williams and w. n. +
!. y. rs.-Fr,m the Fifth District Court of :,
orleans. Rogers was surety on a new trial | O
n Williams, convicted of embezzle- "
,eut nom Ponder; Williams left the State: ,
- wife having deposited with Rogers S2500 u I,
hich she assigned to him. An agreement | tr
a. made that Field. as coansel for VIII e,
ans. should retain whatever balance was "a
IL after Ponder had been satisfied by the So
,,ment oi $500. the prosecution oelDg qG
Rogers refused to pay the lei
oney and ind gInent was given Tor nm 10
smissing the suit. The money IN his
nds belonged n the plaintiffs. Edwards
ID lyll 4 3Si; Marshall vs.. MoTeto1se,