New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-13
COURT RECORD.
THURSDAY, MARCH II, 1871

COURT RECORD.
THURSDAY, MARCH IL, 1871
United States Circuit Court.
United States We. HadnOt ct al.-~ArgQ
pents mbleted.
Superior District Court.
Crescent City Gaslight Company vs.. New
Orleans Gaslight Company, city of New Or
leans, intervening The petition sets forth
the act of incorporation of the defendant
company, the privilege of purchase of the
city; that the city not only has the right to
purchase, but after April |, 1875, the sole
right to manufacture and sell gas in New
Orleans; that the said company still pre-.
tends to have the right to manufacture gas
TIL April ]. 1895, relying on the act OF March
3, 1860; that the title of this act does
got disclose its object; thas it embraces
more than enc object contrary to article
nl5 of the constitution Of 1852, and article
IlS of the constitution of 1864: that it
merely extends the corporate existence OF
the company, and does not deprive the city
Of its privilege, and if 1t does is contrary
to articles los. 1909 and 40 Of the cousti,u.
tiOns of 1852 1864 and 1868 and of article
one, sections nine and ten of the consttu.
sion Of the United States; that the com
pany failed to reduce its price for gas after
january /, 1861; failed TO lay down the iit.
teen miles of main pipe at had agreed to:
Called to lay the man pipes for lighting the
eiyer froct; that the city has not accepted
She act of 1860.
That the Crescent City GasligHc Com.
Sany by act No. ~ of 1870, claims to have
she exclusive right to make and vena gas
&fter April |, 1873, and seeks to obtain
Judicial recognition Of It's franchise: that
the granting of this franchise interierts with
The rights OF petitioner granted by tho act
OF 1885; that it violates the obligation of the
contract and prevents the acquisition of the
property OF the New Orleans Gaslight Com.
Pany by the city as provided by lave that
ehs act ia unconstitutional for reasons be.
Sore assigned; that the claims Of both com.
Sanies are ISLANDERS on the right OF Int y.
Senor TO acquire the property and Vend
gas and injure her credit, and Wit cause
samage TO the extent of $4,000
Prayer for citation of both companies
End the State OF Louisianns and Judgment
slecreeing the city tho right of purchasing:
She property aud the franchise.
games Il. Casey VS.. Mary 40 May.~feti-
zion sets forth a contract between the par
Sies Octobarl3, 1873, defendant agreeing TO
convey certain property to f,laintihs he as
Stunning mortgage of $1,000 III favor of the
metropolitan Loan and Savings Bank of
New Orleans; to pay $1,000 to Samuel Smith
az Co and all taxes of 1871 and 1872. and !
give hi 8 promissory notes at one and two
years for $4,000; that March Z. 1874, he
Snade tender OF full performance that the |
defendant refused TO perform her part; that
there was II valid mortgage of 600 on
The property; that plaintiff then notified
defendant that he held himself discharged
from and protested the contract Plaintiff |
slams that he is fully discharged and the |
contract annulled, yet he fears Samuel |
Smith g. Co.. and the Metropolitan Loan |
and Savings Bank and defendant NAV. BY n |
multiplicity of suits. vex and harrass him if |
not restrained by an Injunction. Where. |
lore lfe prays that they may be inhibited |
from sueing petitioner under tho contract. !
Snd that 1t may be decreed annulled. Iu-
junction issued on bond of $1,000
First District Court.
INFORMATION FILED.
Larceny-John yrencby. Charles vcekc, I
Assault and sattery-Mrs. iIenry Tste.
y ID. OConnell, w. J. O'CSnnor. Leuisa
johnson.
burglary and larcen. William Smi.h.
NoLLE PRosEorr fN.EREs.
Larceny-Maude de yota, Lizzie Davis.
Alice Lubin.
Assault ana tatte,s-Kste liant. lila
s,aviss John Goresey.
TIC II. 1EMssorr.
= e'ttAc Vte huihobN ~ hUuthr. ShSDN. az 1
torney General to show cause March II why
Tho case should not he remanded to the
Ssrst Municipal Court for1xaminatiou.
TRUE BIr..
Stat. Is. Joe Paul and Joe Hu,s-I.~-
fsnye
<ERpIcrs
State We. Edward Ma.:essen 80 f.!.e
,uplisonment. Not guilty.
Ntate va James Wnitp-I ,ntcSry (.uiisy |
Second District Court.
Econ Meyers and NJ. Drefus pr.y 70 I've
Iaancipated
Fifth District Court.
shge NJ Baker vs.. w S. Pike -i'eii- | !
'.uner alleges that December -. 1872. he
h as in Washington. DiStrict of Columbia. |
n the capacity of clerk OF committee of a |
body OF citizens TO represent TO Congress
he state of affairs in Louisiana: that de-
endant WAS member of the committee: i
hat the committee decided to send n sub i
omittee to New York to obtain through !
he press and other agencies the support of | ,
,ubhc sentiment; that petitioner was re- I
uested by Pike and Others 10 90 with the
ommittee and did 90; that petitioner ex-
ended the sum of 5000 on the agreement
nd promise of Pike and others; that Pike
aid him S73 40: that he refuses to pay the
alauce, whereupon he prays for Judgment
IT 1926 So.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de.
sion: o
p. Werlein VS.. Mrs. V. c. Howard b
laintiff obtained judgment recognizing Z
Is privilege as lessor or certain movables. :
adj a fieri iacias having been issued, IL. i
indo fled third opposition, alleging owner t.
lin. He gave no bond to arrest exeeu- c
on. The plaintiff excepted to his ri hit TO v
Q the opposition; Article 90, ,n code OF
q demand brought by third person, not q
is,nally a party to the suit, for the pur p
'se Of, arrestlng the execution of an order u
seizure, or Judgment rendered in such >
IL or TO regulate the effect Of such es,x- T.
8 ins(lli6t kd1ats6t him; TN a must be p
psidered ~ q separate demand, the effect