New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-24
'ciAL JOURNAL OF THE STATE or LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS, FRIDAY, APRIL "a 1874.
Court Items.

The rale for contempt against Auditor
Clinton came up before Judge Hawkins
yesterday. The issuing of the warrants by
the Auditor to w. II. Hunt and Semmes
& Mott and payment by the Treasurer be-
ing admitted, the Attorney General offer ed
no testimony.
Mr.. Hunt read a statement of facts he
had prepared. He had supposed the Attor-
ney General would not appeal the case, had
presented copy of the judgment and had
advised the Auditor it would be proper for
him to issue his warrant.
Mr.. Mott agreed in the main with Nj
Hunt.
Auditor Clinton and Treasurer Dubu LET
also testified.
Attorney General Field said the defen Sc
offered to the rule was a frivolous prete xt
The Auditor had strangely remarked tha t
he had considered 1t his duty to issue the
warrants on the order of the court when an
appeal was pending, and would do it again
The judgment was signed on the ninth, the
State had ten days in which to take an ap :.
peal, and had done it on the tenth. He ha d
kept track of the case, and, though he had
not camped in the clerks Office, thought he
knew the stages of the case. If it went to
the Supreme Court it was sure to be re.
versed, for it was the Governor who wa to
draw the warrants, and not the par ties
The State had been deprived of the righ of
appeal, and now was without remedy The
Auditor has no right to plead ignorance of
the law. He knew the case was appeala bic,
for the amount was over $500.
The court said this was mandate of the
court dissolving the injunction. The Auditor
had been directed by the appropriation bill
to draw the warrants, and was only re-
strained by the Injunction. If he had dis
obeyed the order of the court he wo uld
have been punished. But the court had re-
moved the restriction. The order CON-
manded the Auditor to issue the warrant is,
but that was unnecessary, because the in
junction being dissolved, he was commanded
to do SO by the law. The Auditor had dis
obeyed no order Of the court, but had
Obeyed one. Whatever errors there might
be in the order, this court was not the pl ace
to correct them. The court did not issue
orders it knew to be wrong, and in its opin-
ion this was valid one. The Supreme Court
might reverse it. But so it might conf rm
it. One supposition was as natural as the
other. If it was confirmed, how could the
Auditor be properly punished for obeying it?
This court would not reverse its own ord er.
The Attorney General said the order as
not an interlocutory one nor m andam us.
These parties had not chosen to proceed in
that way. They had come into the cas- as
as defendants. The judg.
ment was q final judgment so far as that
part Of the case was concerned. The State
had ten days to appeal in, and had filed an
appeal in one. Now it was an appeal after
execution.
Judge Hawkins said the order being
made was executory. The court can only
protect its own dignity, and where there
was no intent to commit contempt, no
punishment should be inflicted on pu bic
officer who had obeyed its mandate The
rule was discharged.
The Injunction case was continued to |
Tuesday, on motion of the Attorney |
General