The New Orleans bulletin., 1874-12-18
DECISION BY JUDGE LYNCH.

The following decision was delivered by
Judge Lynch, Of the Fourth District Court
in the following case:
Charles T. Howard VS.. f. T. Denechand snd nj.
Egan. Constable. No. 42.557. Fourth District
Court, Parish Of Orleans.
The plaintiff in this case alleges that IN tne
Third Justices Court for the PARISH OF w
leans E. F. Denechaud did institute a SUIT
against him for $40 %, on the lotn o. 'uiy
1873. at which time and since, plaintiff owed
said Denechaud nothing and without any
legal service Of citation, did proceed 70 taKe
default and final Judgment against s'id Peu,
toner for said amount, and without any le8ai
service of notice Of judgment upon petlroner'
did cause the issuance of writ OF Il. t0.
against him. to said constable, who thereupon,
on his own motion and by order OF said De-
nechaud, did proceed to levy said writ
by seizure and garnishment OF several
friends and business acquaintances OF
petitioner to his great and serious
damage and injury in his business,
and to his business reputation and credit, and
in his personal feelings: that the absolute
nullity Of all said proceedings OF said Dene-
chaud and said constable, was well known to
them when they took said proceedings ana
that said proceedings were taken by them
malic,ously and with the intention OF defraud-
ing him out of the amount OF said claim of
Denechaud, by preventing him from making
anv defense against such demand that the
said Denechaud and the said Egan, conspiring
together, did cause a false return to be made
upon the citation in said case, to the effect
that it had been served upon petitioners SER
want, at petitioners domici, upon which false
and fraudulent return said defendants herein
based their other proceedings against petit
toner, who never knew anything OF them un-
til garnishment process had been served upon
his friends. Petitioner prays for judgment
for the sum of $500, as damages, against de-
PENDANTS IN sOlidO.
The answer OF Denechaud is general de-
nial and special denial Of malice and fraud.
The Constable answers by general denial
and q call on Denechaud in warranty.
The record OF the suit in the Third JUS
tees Court is in evidence. 1t discloses the
fact that Chas T. Howard was sued in that
court on the 18th of July, 1873 on claim OF
$40 25; that citation issued, on which the
Constable made the following return:
"Received, New Orleans July ID, 1873, and
on the 18th day of July, 1873, l served a
true COPY Of the within citation, at the domi-
cile of the defendant, Chas. L. Howard. on
Prytania street, No 1872, in the hands of MI.
Joseph Lewis, above the age OF IA years. re-
siding there (facts which l have learned by
interrogating the said Joseph Lewis), defen-
dant being absent from the city.
A Judgment by default was entered, which
was afterwards confirmed and made final
Notice of judgment issued, and was served IN
like manner as the citation at No. 1872 Pry-
tsnia street. A writ Of il. fa issued to the
Constable. Before the return Of the writ,
citations and interrogatories issued to Pike,
Brother & Co., the Louisiana National Bank
and the Bank of America, as garnishees On
the 25th of August, 1873, Chas. T. Howard
applied to the Third District Court for and
Obtained writ Of Injunction restraining the
execution of the Judgment aforesaid. A
trial was had, and the Court perpetuated the
Injunction, with an order to the Justices s
Court to cause new citation to issue,
and to be served upon Charles T. Howard.
1 take the judgment Of the Third
District Court to be conclusive proof
of plaintiffs allegation, that he was not
legally cited by the Third Justices Court, and
under those circumstances the judgment of
the latter court was an absolute nullity, and
conferred no authority to seize the property
of Chas. T. Howard, either in his own posses
sion or in the hands Of third person. But
it is urged in behalf Of the defendants that
the Third District Court was without juris-
diction of the injunction suit in which the
inyalidity of the citation and notice Of judg-
ment was determined; that that court can
issue an injunction only when necessary to
carry out its appellate Jurisdiction that the
Third Justices Court alone had the authority
to enjoin its own judgments that the pro-
vision of section 2O13, revised statutes Of
1870, under which the injunction issued, is in
conflict with the portion Of article 126, Q. r,
which defines the jurisdiction of the Third
District Court, and that when such conflict
arises, the article of the code of practice
Overrides the said section OF the revised
statutes.
It is true that if there be such conflict the
article of the Code OF Practice must govern.
1t becomes necessary, therefore, Nor the Court
to ascertain whether or not the lawgiver has
given us two enactments during the year
1870 which are antagonistic to and inconsist-
ent with each other, to wit Sec. 2O13 Il.
Stat. and art 1876 G. P. The said section pro-
vides that "in all cases when party shall
have cause to complain of any judgment by a
Justice of the Peace, or act of any Constable
of Justice of the Peace, or his deputies,
and shall think proper to apply to higher
court for relief, by writs of injunction, man.
damus, sequestration, action of nullty, OF
otherwise. it shall be to the Third District
Court only, and to no other that he shall
apply for relief.
Under section 2O14 Revised Statutes: "The
District Courts OF the parish Of Orleans are
without jurisdiction in all civil cases when
the amount in dispute does not exceed 500,
exclusive of interest and costs, except the
Third District Court in its appellate jurisdic
ton"
Article 126 c. p, provides that the ''Third
District Court of the parish of Orleans shall
have exclusive jurisdiction Of appeals from
the Justice, of the Peace, and to restrain aud
enjoin seizures made under orders issued by
Justices Of the Peace for said parish, whether
the same be made under mesne or execution,
when the value of the property exceeds one
hundred dollars"
Taking said section 2Ol3 in connection with
the requirement of section 2Ol4, which fixes
the minimum amount necessary to give the
Third District Court original jurisdiction IN
case like the injunction suit brought by
Howard, l find no conflict between the pro.
visions Of those sections and those Of article
12G, C. P. On the contrary, the sections and
the articles aforesaid are in perfect accord
9TH ooch other as thew prOyide alike thai