New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-15
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, MARCH IA, 1874.
United States Circuit Court,

SAutcS OlFCuIl OOurts
United States vs.. Hadnot ct al.-Jury
out.
Superior District Court.
Judge Hawkins rendered the following
decision.
State Of Louisiana ex rel. Crescent City
WaterwOrks Company VS.. Secretary of
State.-Application for mandamus., Re-
lator alleges the passage of an act of incor-
poratlOn by the Legislature of 1871, and
which has become law by having passed
through all the forms required by the con-
stitution, but which the Secretary Of State
refuses to promulgate in the official jour
nal. The point sought to be established,
that the act was in the hands of the Gov
ernOr more than five days previous to the
adjournment of the session of 1871, is not
sustained, because the Secretary failed to
promulgate it after the adjournment Of the
Legislature. The fact that the Governor
elected the Secretary from bis Office in or
der to prevent his promulgating the bill as
law has nothing to do with this case.
This was no doubt an improper action ON
his part and might cause both to lose their
offices, but it does not affect this case.
Under the constitution, the executive
can keep bill under advisement un-
til the next assembling of the Leg
islature, which in this case was the
first day of January, 1872. The evidence
shows that on that day the Governor dated in
the executive office message to the House
of Representatives vetoing the bill. This
message was not acted on until the TWEEN
ty-fourth day of January. 1t is contended
therefore that because Of the constitutional
requirement that veto messages must be
sent to the General Assembly on the first of
January, that this bill became law. The
law presumes that every officer discharges
the duty assigned to him. The Governors
message being dated on Janury !, is prima
facie proof that it was delivered to the
House on that day. he being in close con-
nectiOn with it. But it makes no difference
whether the message was sent to the House
that day or not The legal maxim
which requires party to do a thing within
given time, allows that party to do it
afterward. if nothing has interviewed to pre-
vent. In this case nothing has interviewed
because the law has not been promulgated
up to this date. On the twenty-fourth day
OF January, the journal of the House shows
that the veto message, which was dated on
the first of January, was called up to be
printed, and on the twenty-seventh the
House voted to sustain the veto by II to l.
l, therefore, conclude that nothing inter
vened to prevent this action OF the House
between the first and twenty-seventh of
January. That action was conclusive con-
domination of the bill by sustaining the
veto and declaring the act creating the
Waterworks Company void. Judgment
being refused.
First District Court.
TRUE BILLS.
State vs.. Pat Murphy.-Assault and bat
terry.
State vs.. David Shannon. and
battery.
State vs.. Eliza MISUNDERSTANDING
State VS.. one Lynch, George Lynch and
Folling Gauss.-Assault and battery.
SURRENDERED.
State vs.. Bartholomy Towne.-Murder.
Accused was surrendered by surety and
to Parish Prison.
NOLLE PROsEQUI ENTERED
State vs.. Jordan en.-Manslaughter
State VS.. Peter MISUNDERSTANDING
ter.
PLEADED GUILTY.
State VS.. Peter Keveny.-Assault and
battery. Plea of guilty of assault.
State vs.. Abraham SmOd.-Larceny.
PLEADED NOT GUILTY.
Sylvan, John Hussey
Larceny-William Henderson, L. Barba,
alias Lucas, John Gilmore.
knowingly receiving stolen goods -
Philip Hoelzel.
Larceny-Benjamin Meyers. Alex Azard,
George Wilson. One year each in the Peni-
tiary.
Assault with dangerous weapon-Hen-
rietta johnson. One day in the Parish
Prison.
ON TRIAL.
State vs.. Harry Foster Obtaining
money under false pretenses. Jury out.
Second District Court.
Louise L. NJ. Testart Grosval prays to
'e emancipated.
Succession Of Mrs. Guy Duplantier,
'pened. ~ r
- Roursh District Coart.
ThA 6nll0 Rina x,nfifiox, hoa honun AloId. L