New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-12-17
COURT RECORD.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER &c 1874.
Supreme 4;OurS.

superior OistYica Court.
SAFE ex rel. the Attorney General ard X.
Il. Walsh ~. b. ,. Jonas.-luterventicu OF
s. r Blanc, assistant city attorney, on
special ordinance OF the Council, protesting
against the appearance Of Nj. Walsh OH
behalf Of the city. Mr.. Walsh objected 10
the appearance OF Mr.. Blanc, AID the court
refused TO decide between them, consider
ing TIE question one of propriety.
State ex rel. j. B. Elan We. the Returning
Decentralization claims that the board are
about ~ illegally throw ont che vote Of De
Soto parish. and asks for . MandSmus COM
peiling them to count IL.
Defendants answer denies st,e .jurisdic-
ton Of the court, the board being governed
By a Specal act and their own discretion;
and further, that tie city Otficers author
lied 70 make rstnrns :ov the parish o! DE
Soto have not done SO. Rule uiei to Oe
argue. on the seventeenth instant.
Superior Criminal Court.
State " Richard Bell and John Jones -
Murder. Verde: If guilty wjthcu: capital
punishment.
Sirss Di..rics Csups.
State ". Joseph Berlasd.-Pet.y ia:sea-.
Solk u!OseGui entered.
Second Histyice csars.
SUGGESTIONS of Peter Brown. johann ia.
cob O.lbagen, Charles J. A. UAntoneI and
Ba!AOnd Richard opened.
Third Dissr1cs Ceuss.
Judge Nsupi<r rendered she following
decision:
state Of 1.ouisian. ex REL. ". r. Walker,
masteB Of steamboat Quincy, ys. Seventh
| Justice Court for she parish Of Orleans
! Application FOB writ OF prohibition. The
! fret exception. thu, this is not . case tor
! writ Of prohibition. 10 not good. FOR The
! writ OF prohibition is an order that isanes
: from an appellate court. direceed to the
! Judge OF an anterior tribunal. and to the
! party suing N suit before tina: tribunal,
| iorbdling them, in the name Of the State.
70 proceed further in the cause, on the
| ground that che cognizance Of said cause
| does not be.oss e. such . court, but to
! another, and that il is Dot competent to
decide i. la:e. Si6 G. ?. J. and the relator's
petition certainly Giscloses. in the conten-
I plation Of the law. csuse oS Sctson tor sne
| writ Of prohibition.
The Jurisdiction o. the Third District
I Cour. is fixed by article eishty-tLree Of The
! constitution. extended Nv Z. b., 2013. 70
power 90 issue writs Of certiorari, etc, and
the writ Of prohibition may issue from this
7 court not only when il is necessary to The
| exercise OF ito appellate jurisdiction, but in
any ease, whether appsalable or not, where
il il Gecessary 20 prevent the ]usticee OF the
! peace from extending their jurisdiction, or
!
I ti0hal. and Che writ NAV issue before or
I after Judgment. G. r. $40, s54. All claims
not SvsS el00 against any steamboat CT
| other vessel. UY she captain and owners
thereof, if i,dicislly enforced, must be sued
on before the Justice OF the district WithiH
I whose territorial liNiss the steamboat or
I other vessel lies nooret az the time Of the
institution of me suit. The AZ: of March
| 80. 1871. creating the Seventh Justice Coure
I t.>& hat ~
| risdiction with the other courts. and IL H.
Ike these latter, subject 10 The disabillsies
and prohibitions contained in sectiou 2I0f,
n. q, above referred 10. At the .ine OF the
! institution Of the suic before che Seventh
Justice Court. she steamboat being moved
] within the territorial limits O: the SECOND
Justice Of Che Peace, the Seventh Justice
| Cour: IA. no jurisdiction over said suir. and
Therefore can not take cognizaace u Tie
l same.
! writ Of prediction he,eis issued mace
! sbso!U:e.
Fifth District Ceu1s.
Jnl.. Gallon. rendered :he following &c
cis!y.: ..
! tin.-Paui alGige. JUles AlCige and Charles
! -srCc :he petitioner. besin. and +. +
joseph Martin. defendant, constituted the
,ne,nbe Of the corporation known as th<
|
I created Mnder che iews at this Staee ant
located IN New Os!eane. Paul As;igs
cwns,! SOC shares ct .ne stock, Jules Aidist
/ 400. Charles CayArcc $50 and J.. j. Jose Ut
/ Ns.,.n 500 shares--in oil 1860 ehares.
The petitioners a:leGe that, in the month
OF September. 1871. an agreement was en-
, tered INTO between them and the defendan
s,y which al. OF :hem eound themselves Z
the etfec: tCa: IL either "ae OF them shouit
a. .nv time cell any portion OF his share
! the proceeds thereof should be divided be
| tween al! Of them in the proportion ~hlcf
! their respective shsrea bore 10 each other
ard III. Other share holders were TO rein
bu.se she vendor tGeiH pro rata OF unsoit
shares, 90 that. whether the one or tii1
. o.he, should SCI! any or all Of his shases
, ! their :. la.iou to each other might neves b'
, | charged until the whole OF the share
, | should he disposed! Of. They further ave
J thx. Ma:ti, understood and repeated /.
! consented to :his agreement; that, being II
, France. IN February OF March. 1872. h
sold $50 rhaIes III the stock At eliN pa:
share, making the SUM OF ~ 800 which hi
| RECESSED: that this sale WAS MaGe Tor IN
. ! common benefit Of all the parties 70 tht
! agreement, and tnas this money SHOULD have
been divided between all OF them III III
proportion which their respective shares I"
l stock bose 70 each other, anu Martin com
! 1,elln6 10 take. in lieu of the shareA chu
sold. HE pro rata cf the remaining icIC AN
sold shares. or about 1872 shares. 1he,
further alleye tina. these shares have Away
heeu .iuce TIE sale and still are held suhl-c
to tie order OF Martin on his eonplSioi
. with The agreement 20 divide the -. 10
with them, as follows: To Pau! Aldlge
i. 4S0: % Charles CavaKoc, SC'iO: 70 julie
Ald:ye. e5s3O, AID Martin 20 retain !'4sV
! They pray f,r Judgment accordingly, VIII
interes. illegal presume) on these sum
from from the first OF March. 1877, and tina
| Martin be ,iecreed 20 receive the transte
| FROM ,ben, Of IS. shares of the stock tt IN
Bieny;lle Oil Works Company. rs follows
I From Paul Aldige. sixty eight sharee; iron
&c. Cavoroc. SiXty-One shares, and iron
julie. Aidige, tit.y.three shares: and the,
| pray for al. further equitable AUG ceeessa!!
. orders and for general relief:
TO these ale cations Martins answer is 'irs
a general denial, and further answering n
| saws that ca mutual mandate was verbal.
I granted between The parties to this suis =
cell the stock held By them respectively TO
.heir Joint benefit. according 20 the humble
Of shares held by each OF them. but. hnd'p!
that ;ha plaintiffs did no: act under SAL
mandate and made no sales OF any Vi SAT-
1 stock. revoked eaiI mandates and INFORMED
the plaintiffs thereof hong before ne sole
any Of his stock: that having tEus revoked
| the mandate to sell the stock referred "a
| he was at liberty to sell. and did sell IN
stool. belonging 70 hiIS for HE sole benefit
. and is not bound TO give any part 81 IN
! proceeds Of sale to the plaintiffs. Where
lore he prava 20 be hence dismissed. VAL
his costs, and for general relief.
The evidence introduced to establish sr