New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-12-18
6 ORLEANS FRIDAY,
COURT RECORD,
THURSDAY, DECEMBER II, 1871.

COURT RECORD.
THURSDAY, DECEMBER II. 1874.
Supreme Court.
Sfessrs. Ray and Lowell have filed peti-
ton in this court for a mandamus on the
Judge of the Superior Criminal Court, com
pelling him to admit to bail one Seymour
Van Dusen, now held by the criminal
sheriff on a warrant from Justice OF the
Peace Burke, in Natchitoches. on the charge
OF stealing heifer. Taken under advise
ment until Friday.
Superior District Csuss.
State OK rel j. B. Eam We. ). Madison
Wells ct al.-Rule for mandamus TO compel
the Returning Board 20 canvass the returns
from Dc Soto parish. Rule dismissed, the
court having no jurisdiction in the case.
Louisiana State LOTTERY Company vs. w.
NJ. Pinkard ct al. The plaintiff, through
Charles T. Howard. president. states that
under act No. 25 of 1868, the act incorpor-
ating them, they are entitled to damages
from $1,000 to $4,000 fbr each violation of
said act-seIling of tickets of lotteries of
any kind; that said William NJ. Pinkard and
Charles Faurie, Jr., have disposed of
ten and more tickets for lottery for
house on Amelia street, between st. Charles
and CarOndelet streets, the property Of said
Plnkard. to be drawn on the twenty second
of December at John Hawkins, No IS4
Common street. They claim SIC, 900 dam
ages in solido from the above defendant,
and in the meantime ask that Messrs Pink
ark, Faurie and Hawkins be epjoined from
further proceediugs. Injunction issued on
$500 bonds.
State OF Louisiana ex rel. H. H. Walsh
vs.. b. +. .Jonas.-Defendan filed the fellow
inp answer: Now comes by his counsel IN
dersigned, B. F. Jonas, cited as defendant
herein, and for answer to the petition pleads
general denial OF each and every aliega-
tlon therein, except 80 far as may be here
inafter specially admitted. Respondent
further answering, pleads that on the fifth OF
December, 1874, he was duly elected for two
years, unless sooner removed, to the office
OF City Attorney by the Mayor and Council
OF Administrators OF the city OF New Orleans,
by virtue Of and in strict compliance with its
chartered rights and privileges, and that
respondent qualified and was duly lnducted
into office as such, is now in possession of
records and archives books and papers. and
was performing Its duties until restrained
by an injunction illegally and unauthOr-
lzedly issued herein, all which will more
fully apgear by the commission hereto an
nexed and made part thereof Now, your
respondent denies that II. II. Walsh has
any right, title or claim to said office under
his pretended appointment and commission
from w. P. Kellogg, Governor, as set forth
in the petition, and that in reality said
Walsh is intruding, usurping and Obstruct-
ing respondent in his Office, without color
OF law, and to respondents damage and in.
jury, and to the damage and injury Of
the corporation Of New Orleans, which
is entitled to select its own counsel,
as will be hereinafter specially averred and
fnIlv ahnwn RQan0ndApf ENQciaftv 6QniQa
that there was on the fifth OF Decem.
Der, 1874, any vacancy in the office
of City Attorney, or at the time the
Governor is alleged to have appointed
said Walsh, and issued the alleged com.
mission, or that the said Governor vas
in possession Of any lega! evidence show.
ing any vacancy therein, and that conse-
quently the Governor was utterly without
power or authority to make said pretended
mission. and the same is absolutely null
and void.
Respondent alleges further that the resig-
nation OF George 5. Lacey, as former City
Attorney, did not create any vacancy in
said office. and was mere surplusage. be-
cause his term OF office expired by law and
by the charter. with the induction into office
OF the new Council elected on the second Of
November, 1874, and that any ordinance OF,
"a 1eNOAAAP ~ ~AssNO W viz AOAAAA O'NnSAA ~
extend the term OF sald George 5. Lacey
thS;r ovn ot;n;., av;s,av.a "s ,wss o Iii ond
void. Respondent reiter. . "a that the term
of office of said Lacey con, not he extended
beyond the Limitation fixed by law for the
official lite Of the Administrators by
whom he WAS elected. ard that nnon the
Installation of the rev COuncil in Decem.
ber, 1874. said Lacey was ,ructas ofieio,
with or without resignation, and Lett the
new Councn the power clothed OF elecung
ms successor ACCORDING TO the thirty'
mrs! sectlon OF act no: o. acts ls|0;
wnlcn rlgn1 ana privllege salo Councl
nase uu'y eAelclseu a' Hs nfst regular
1Ws;g 1WWeG;ung anu aGcoralng 10 law; tnat salo
frnn, a,,eaa;n H. ~; VA 10s E;t., 'oT"ppou T
Gil wss NOT antbor;1ad ~ alaot
the respondent, and that the said
pretended election Is absolutely null, void
1uu sna " ~ euece III law, oecause salu Waisn
;ted tho otos 90 =. ~ say eleclon ann AS soi;c
tU.ton Uot .n0 s"'ss ~ sne mayor anu Au'I,s' p
$1,000 toa annnns hsen tt as CTy A..oruey. NJ
$4,000. wherefore respondent prays for
special iurv. that atter dne nroceed; ;nps had.
the Injunction herein be dissolved, that
have Judgment in his favor dis. |
missing plaintiffs petition. and that re
1PonUon. Oo tuASleu AZ uls oiAAces sSA1U 1o1
costs and general relief.
State ex rel 6 van n,son SO V';,,;ar,
Pagan, criminal sheritf-In the case of Van
Dusen, heid oy the sheriff on a warrant
tochas 'iudoe " @ toohe o".o "ot'uad .ha m m"t;nr
Tor bail and the appeal. but continued the |
case until Friday at ten o'clock, by consent. !
rERDlCIs.
Thomas Killilea. assault and battery nm.