New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-04
COURT RECORD.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1874.

United states Circuit Court.
United States vs.. William j. Cruikshank
ct als-Conspiracy and murder. On trial.
Superior District Court.
State We. Il. c. Warmoth.-Verdict for
defendant
Judge Hawkins issued the following order
State vs.. Charles Clinton.-Ordered that the in.
junction against the item of $4,000 for the State
militia, and the item OF 5000 for rewards for the
apprehension Of criminals, be dissolved, and the
Auditor is directed to draw his warrants for the
amounts on the Treasurer and charge the same to
the current expenses OF the state government for
the year 1874, and the Auditor is prohibited from
| drawing any warrant under any of the items Of
| the appropriation bill not against the current
funds and which are enjoined in this suit, and the
Auditor is further prohibited from drawing any
warrant under the app. Opriation act against any
anticipated fund to be derived from the collection
of back delinquent taxes. And it is further
ordered that under act No. of 1874. known as the
funding bill, no warrant drawn under act No So
can be funded or received for back delinquent
taxes. and the Auditor is prohibited from drawing
warrants with view or intention or design of hav.
ing such warrants received in payment OF back or
delinquent taxes.
Service accepted by the Auditor and a
copy served on the Treasurer.
The Attorney General Immediately fled
a motion to appeal.
superior Criminal Court.
INFORMATION FILED.
ARRAlGNED.
State VS.. H. S. Latourette.-Exto ton in
office. Two cases. Plea of mIsnomer en-
tered and indictment amended. Plea of
not guilty.
State vs.. E. J. Conner.-Plea to jurisdic-
ton 0verruled and plea of not guilty en-
tered.
State vs.. Mrs. R. Boylan-Resisting an
officer. Plea of not guilty.
dali ell
No. 76. The State Of Louisiana VS.. W. W. McCul.
l0ugh.-Indictment for, first: Oppression, ulder
color Of Office; second False Imprisonment. The
foregoing s the Endorsement on the indictment in
the above cause but on examining the body of the
indictment, find but one count and one Offense
Office doubt very much whether the indictment
could stand under demurrer to it, but the defend
ant has seen fit to rely upon a plea IN bar, in
which he admits having committed to prison, the
prosecutor, ]. D. oCOnnell, but AYERS that such
Imprisonment was for contempt of the authority
OF the defendant as police magistrate of the
city of New orleans, and describes the contempt
as follows: "Dld commit contempt of court in
the presence of the said court, by refusing to
the same, the said court being then in ses.
siOn.' TO this plea The district attorney filed
a demurrer, thereby, admitting all the facts
set forth in the plea. lhe authority Of the
defendant, in his caDacity as police magistrate,
to commit for 9 contempt vi cOnrt, can not be
denied. ANY violation OF the rules and orders of
the court i'll its presence is contempt, and where
such misconduct is admitted, it would be a novel
proposition to maintan that the defendant could
be tried for oppression under color of office "
when the act upon which the accusation is based
was perfectly legal one, and the power exer-
cistd entiIe within the limits OF the law.
In mattehs of contempt where the jurisdiction
of the magistrate is not disputed, the nature of
the contempt can not be inquired into.
police magistrate can be indicted for misde-
meanOr in Office and for oppression or extortion
in office, but essential ingredients OF these Of
lenses evil intent, malice and corrupt motives.
fh~o st,r,aI y1Ca II
dients are shown not to exist Oh the contrary,
the facts are that the defendant acted strictly
within his jurisdiction and the power conferred
upon him by law as police magistrate.
Let the indctment be set aside and the defend.
ant discharged from his bond.
No. 26. The State of Louisiana W. W, W. McCul-
Tough. The charge in this case is false imurison
ment of one TheOdore Ottendorf. A plea in bar is
interposed to which the district attorney has de-
INJURED The undispute facts are that Ottendorf
was charged with assault and battery on John
Knutzen, under oath properly made before the de-
fendant as police magistrate. He was arrested un-
der a warrant and brought before the court. The
defendant be ore going into an examination of the
charge pending, took upon himself the respons-
blIity OF believing, from the personal appearance
and incOherent remarks and behavior (the Ian
guage Of the pea) of OttendOrf when under arrest,
tnat he was insane, and instead Of Immediately ad
mitting him to ball. ordered him to be confined uH.
til an examination could be made by the city ply.
sician to ascertain if he was insane and tor that
purpose kept him imprisoned for several hours
When the examination was made it resulted in
OttendOrf being declared a harmless person, and
he was then admitted to bail.
The statement of facts in the plea does not 60
far enough to warrant me in determining whether
or no The defendant was protected by the law in
assuming the responsibility he did.
To constitute false imprisonment there are two
requisites: !. The detention of the person. 3
The unlawfuness of such detention. In order to
sustain this accusation, it is not necessary to
prove malice or wrongful motive. If there is an
arrest and detention without authority of law.
the Offense is complete "Archbold c. T. p, Vol
O. p. 81, ct seq, and authorities there cited"
am not prepared to say that police magis
trate, or any magistrate no matter how high his
station, has the authority, of his own voition
without justihable cause, 10 imprisOn citizen for
the smallest particle of time. The questions OF
fact involved in this case are too grave to be
is
the law creating the Office they have 10 common
law powers save as expressly conferred upon them
by statute. These officers assume terrible re-
spOnsblity when they undertake to act beyond
the strictest limits Of their jurisdiction.
do nos undertake to express any opinion on
the facts in this case, but think there is suff-
Gent for jury to pass upon, and prefer such
should be the course adopted
cused notified to appear and plead over to the in-
dictment
First District Court.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Larceny-Louisa Smith.
Assault and battery-John Fitzgerald.
MIsTRIAL.
State We. Josephine Schneider.-Know-
ingly receiving stolen goods.
SENTENCED.
Henry Smith, larceny, two years in Peni-
tentiary.
John Bush, assault and battery, one day
in Parish Prison.
Superior District Court. .t
John Burke VS.. city of NewvOrleans.-
Action for fees as clerk of court. Judg
ment for plaintiff rendered, and on it the
city is restrained from paying any claim,