New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-10

Mrs. Louisa L. Knox ct al.-From Fiftl
Judicial District Judgment affirmed.
No. 1859. Succession of John Benigan.-
From parish court of Jefferson. Judgmen
reversed and case remanded.
No. 1917. E. N. Cramer, appellant, va. A
V. Brown.-From Thirteenth Judicial Dis
trict. Plaintiff claims to be sheriff of Madi
son, and has discharged the duties and re
ceived the emOluments; that defendant hai
disturbed him in his Office and obtained al
injunction restraining him. Defendant ex
cepts to the form of action, and it was vel
taken. The action should have been under
the intrusion act. Judgment reversed.
| No. 1868. John /. Adams va, Asa Webster
From Third Judicial District. This case i.
reported in % A.. lib, and was remandeG
for new trial. The defendant filed q spe
cial plea of payment, and offered his owl
testimony to sustain it, but it was excluded
on the ground that he was disqualified un
der act No. AZ of 1873, being delinquen,
taxpayer, and published as such for thirty
days. Defendant contends this violates
article ia of the constitution, because it,
object is to establish q rule OF evidence not
expressed in its title. Plaintiffs counsel
says that the Legislature has the right tc
close the doors of the courts to any litigan,
by inhibitiHg him from bringing or defend
| ing SUITS" which is proposition too mon
strous to DO entertained, but the question OF
evidence is exclusively under legislative con
troll. The courts of the country are open to
all, but no one has a constitutional right to
give testimony. This virtually admits tina,
the provision of the act under consideration
is a regulation of evidence. The title OF
the act should then give some indication OF
such object. No one reading the title would
| suppose the act contained any rule of evi.
dence. We must Their efore hold such q
| provision unconstitutional, and give the
defendant an opportunity to be heard as a
witness. Judgment reversed and case re-
1 manded.
No. SOLO, Louis Duplex, appellant. ".
| Alexander Deblieux.-From Ninth Judicial
District. Judgment affirmed.
| No. 5O23. julius Levin ct al, appellants,
| vs.. John DeLacy ct al.-From the Ninth
Judicial District. The Injunction should
have been maintained without prejudice to
the rights of the parties on the bonds.
I Judgment reversed.
! No. 5O32: F. Fluck vs. Mrs. Mary A. Mar
| tin, appellant.-From the Ninth Judicial
District. The plaintiff should have proved
| that the amounts were furnished in the sep
| arate accounts Of the defendant. Judgment
reversed. .
No. 5096. K. r. Groves er al, appellants,
vs.. Charles Carpenter, executor-From
Thirteenth Judicial District. Plaintiffs
allege half the estate left by Mrs. Celia
A. Graves was community property, and
| attack Judgment rendered many years
ago, decreeing q separation of property
alleging that Mrs. Graves had no seq arate
property; that the Judgment was pretended
and never executed Judgment against
plaintiffs affirmed.
By JUSTICE WYLSs
No. 1904. George NJ. Bayly, executor, ap-
pellant vs. David Duny.-From Fifteenth
Judicial District. Judgment amended by
rejecting defendants unconventional de-
mand.
No. 1856. State ex rel Semmes & Mott
vs.. Judge of the Superior District Court.
This court will not exercise . supervisory
control over the district courts ala the
writ of prohibition will not be used, except
in aid of tho appellate jurisdiction of this
court. Therefore, when the REALTORS suit
for damages against Charles Clinton was
transferred from the Sixth District Court
to the Superior District Court BY order of
the last named court the REALTORS remedy
was not writ of prohibition from this
court, became the jurisdiction of this court
was not involved; but bis remedy was an
appeal from the order of the Superior Dis
trict Court, ordering the transfer of the
suit to that court. See D'Meza VS.. Judge
Fourth District Court. 81 A.. l23. Petition
dismissed.
/ No. 5OS6. Meyer g. Kahn VS.. Joseph A.
Rothschild ct al.-From Thirteenth Judi
cial District. The garnishees against
whom judgment has been rendered, have
not been cited. This court will notice the
want of proper parties, and on its own mo-
ton dismiss an appeal when the fault is
imputable to the appellant. Martin VS..
Taylor ct al, q A., 303. Appeal dismissed.
No. 30e7. II. Potter vs.. David Grant and
William r. Bell, appellants-FrOm Fourth
District Court of Orleans. The plaintiff,
the transteree of judgment eDjoined by
the defendant, seeks to recover damages
on the injunction bond. The defense claim
that there is no privity between them and
the plaintiff, the bond not being transferred
to him with the judgment and cite. Tete
vs.. Villarosa, A., 27l. The Injunction
suit passed as an accessory with the judg-
ment bought. After the purchase the
plaintiff alone had an interest in resisting
the injunction and became the real defend
ant in the suit. The transfer of the judg-
ment would have been vain thing If the
bond had not gone with it, The case is not
like the one at bar. Judgment affirmed
No. 1924. w. L. Morgan & Co., appel
lants, vs.. police jury parish of Rapides.-
From Ninth Judicial District. Plaintiffs
eDjoined the parish jury of Pineville from
enforcing an ordinance prohibiting the keep
ing of more than fifty cords of wood for q
certain period, and absolutely from keep
ing wood for sale after January l, 1874.
The court below dissolved the injunction.
1t is shown that plaintiffs wood yard does
not obs,ruct navigation, interfere with
trade or encroach on the public road. The
police jury have no power to pass such an
ordinance. Ordered that the injunction be
made perpetual.
No. 5035. w. j s. Johnson vs.. John C.
Dunbsr.-From Ninth Judicial District.
Dunbar, administrator of succession of
Winder Crouch, advertised for sale lands
claimed by w. j. 8 johnson as purchaser
from the United States revenue collector
who epjoined the sale. Dunbar has claim
against johnson on prOmissOry note for
mules. The two suits are consolidated.
The mules were sold for taxes as property
of the succession. As johnson rented the |
land the year after his acquisition of pre-
tended title he conceded his want of it.
Judgment perpetuating injunction annulled |
and $500 damages allowed.
Chief Justice Ludeling dissenting.
No. 5O47. James f. Hayden, executor, vs.
Henry Newell, appellant.-From Fifth |
Judicial District. The question being one
of fact, we are satisfied from the evidence
the court below did not err. Judgment |
affirmed. |
No. 5lO6. Succession of William Richard.
parish court of West Fellciana.
ho oPPonento anu dppollanCS NOT having |
given bond the appeal is dismissed.
Nos. $3.50 and 5000. Succession of Harriet |
L. Vaughn.-FrOm parish court of Iberville |
Suit under Code of Practice 800 1922, to com.
pei sale OF property to satisfy Judgment |
against the succession Defense, that the !
Judgment is void; rendered without proof,
for pretended services for which the exc |
,utor had NO authority to contract. Oppo-
sitiOn dismissed on the ground that the par.
sh court could not revise the judgment of |
The district court This was correct. |