New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-12-25
COURT RECORD.
SNURsDAy, DECEMBER "a. eG4.

ana, intervenOc From Superior District
Court. KelatOr alleges having been elected
Fiscal Agent Of the State under tho funding
act lac. Nc. 81: has qualified a. such and
given bOnfs in the eum OF 0,0oo; thai,
as Eisca: Agent. i is his duty 20 receive
from the State Treasurer, ana to hold ana
acesunt for, unde1 the obligations of
bis ctiicia; bond. oil she moneys OF
the State: that Es has choaen the New
Orleans National Bank, whereof 10 il a
director aud president, as the placs OF de-
posi; that be ia. notified the Treasurer.
who refuses to recognize him or hand over
the funds. He prays for = writ OF mall
damus against tho Treasurer. The latter
denies the legal right of tho relatcr to de-
mand the States moneys from him and
adopts the answer Of the State as 1nter-
yenor, which alleges that, under the con
stitutlon and the laws, she Treasurer is 'hn
only officer authorized to receive, keep OF
disburss the moneys OF the Stale, and that
there il no provision in the funding ACT
which compels him to hand over the moneys
OF the State to said Fi-ca! Agent; that the
Treasurer, unGer some unrepealed law, mas
deposited the funds in the Louisiana Ma
t,onal Bank. the safety OF which woui4 Do
jeopardized by .leposit;ng them with an
individual NOT ., officer .: the State AID
not required 70 give bond.
From a Judgment refusing the writ q
mandamus the relator has appealed.
The title Of tie funding acS. sections one.
two, seven and seventeen. ere then quoted,
and the court holds:
1t seems sufficient answer to teIatov .
demand to saw that there il nothing IN the
foregoing which eonfers on him, or implies
a right o. duty as Fiscal Agent to receive
IRON the State Treasurer under his official
bond. and to hold and account for the
moneys belonging 20 che STATE, "r choose >
| back Tor such purposes, o: tina: imposes on
| the Treasurer the duty to deposit with the
| r.lator; and, therefore. there "a 10 ease. no
cause for the writ OF mandaDus.
The act does not specifically pfeacrlbe
any duties OF the Fiscal Agent, confer on
| bini any special pawer, or make any refer
ence to such ia the title, and il is only when
| a special ministerial duty is imposed upon
| la " ofiioer that "a maudamus can properly
issue against him. Bnt it is commended by
| reletor that the phrase Fiscal Agent OF the
State. ut the TIME Of the passage of the fund
| ing act, had we'll understood, distinc:
meaning. md that the Legislatures intent
| in using it was manifest as the depository
| of the State funds, as in the case of the Fis.
Gal Agent OF the city of New Ci-a-s, the
law having. il 1870. made him the Iepos'
| itory of al, the city's funds.
Our examination, Say 8 the conrf. OF these
laws does not bring us to the conclusion
that the term Fiscal Agent means btcessa
riIy the depository of public funds, SO as by
the simple use Of it ia a statute without
directions in that respect to make 1t the
duty OF the city or State Treasurer to con
fer upon such agent power to compel snch
deposit, with him or it.
As to the Fiscal Agent for the city of New
| Orleans, the avs are distinct and explicit
| in directing when and how such agent-a
| tank-shall bs chosen; what shall be
Vl.6av mt
while, in the act under review, no such
| direction appears, and nothing is said, ex
cept that a majority CT certain officers
| com posing u board of liquidator>, shall
elect Fiscal Agent for the State, who
| shall also be a member Of said board, and
| shall be subject 10 certain penalties, should
| he divert certain funds. Bat every officer
of tie State and board of Iqnidators il
| embra cpd in the same provisions; and as t.
| the Fiscal gent. upder the funding act OF
| 1870, the president OF bank named, was
| designated by Law, Tor the purpose, III con
| function with the Governor and Auditor. oi
| negotiating tho bonds authorized by said
acb but 40 reference was L. AIDE 10 the Gus
| tody of public moneys.
By existing laws the Treasurer ia to de-
| post the State moneys ih n bank selected
| by him, and he may With the concurrence
| of the Governor remove them to another
| in the funding act at all incOnsistenI there
With, and they are therefore not repealed
| Or affected by the repeating clause OF this
| act. Whatever may be the duties OF the
| relator under the present funding act, it is
| clear to us that it is not one of his duties To
! demand, receive ana place III u bank.
| chosen b7 BIN or elsewhere, the moneys oi
| the State, those arising under the provisions
| of this act or from any other source. TaI1
| duty pertains exclusively to the treasury
| department. and the moneys therein eau.
! under the constitution, only he withdrawn
| by the Treasurer under a specific approprla-
ton, made by law. Judgment affirmed.
No 35i6 Marin haly Wa. New Orleans
| CRY Railroad Company.-Plaintiff claims
| $500 damages for IN uiies iDii'c'ed by fault
| OF the company, and from Judgment in his
| favor for $500 the defendant. has appealed.
| Tba simple question is, did plaintiff by his
| negligence or fault contribute to thc injury
| This not having been proven, the judg-
| III ut is affirmed.
No. 2i99. Mrs. A Golden, wife, etc, and
! J. G.. Aucolm VS.. b. Collins ct ais.
| T. Michel, one of the defendants has ap-
De led from Judgment against him tor
one third OF the amount found by the judge
| q quo to be due plaintiffs for WORK III OGild
| ing certain levees.
After examining the pleadinss no error is
| f,nnd to his prejud;ce. Judgment affirmed.
No. 5i47 State OF Louisiana VS.. Widow
j. G.. De st. Eomes-trom Superior Dis
trict Court. Defendant resisted tire col
lection Of State taxes for 1871 on several
grounds. All constitutional objections have
been decided adversely to her in recent de-
cisions of this court. She also contends
that the assessments were erroneous, both
in regard to description and valuation
thereof, and took exception to the ruling OF
the court in refusing to receive testimony
going to show that she had opposed the
assessment in dne time, aud giving in her
opposition the correct description and va!ua
fion; that said opposition was dis:cgardei.
The authority to correct errors ~ solely
eonided to the board OF assessors II the
city If New Orleans and the Auditor. Act
No. ~ Of ISL, s'ctiOns 50 and %. l: was
there ore useless that the court should hear
the testimony offered. The defendant also
contends that there ia no proof on the
record to establish The demand OF plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed and amended to allow
penalty OF twenty five per cent to run only
from fifteenth December. 1872.
The case came up on an application Tor
rehearing. 1t is not shown that the party
sought to correct the erroneous assessment
by making application to the hoard OF AS
SCISSORS. Furthermore, the constitu tionaiitv
OF the provisions Of sections forty five and
.it.v of act No. - OF 1871. making the deci
ri ons OF the board OF assessors mat rs 10
the valuations in said assessment rolls, was
not raised in his case. The constellation
atty of law will not be considered when
an issue to that effect has not been RAISED
in the case. isehearing refused.
No. 37S5. McCiosky, Bgley & Co. Va
Wingield & Br'dses.-Appeal By plaintiffs
from o writ al attachment issued upon ale
CATIONS hat they were about dispossesslrg
themselves Of mules, carts and other prop
erty used az coal III erchants, and 10 convert
their property Into money or evidence o!