New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-29

No. 49l1 City vs.. May.
No. 1862 Reitch vs.. Rousselin.
No. 1924. Morgan vs. Lombard.
No. 1915. Succession OF Barnett.
No. 52S9. lrby vs. ker.
No. 1881. Richardson VS.. Chevalley.
No. 1882. Stagg vs.. Belden.
No. 4156. Evans va. Sauvinet.
No. 1860. Durac vs.. Duckerts.
No. 4sl7. Soye vs.. Cornier.
No. 50Si. Fleming vs. Watson.
No. 33I7. Mithoff VS.. Bohn.
No. $3.50. Gardner vs. Mcdaniel.
No. 52O9. Malady vs.. Malady.
No 35l7. Washington VS.. Nixon.
No. 3474. Davis VS.. Bradley, Wilson g. Co.
No. 49l2. State vs.. Wilson.
No. STA. Pickens vs. Friend.
No. 1866. McCarty vs.. Spaulding & Bid
well.
No. 1894 Ebert vs. Duran.
No. 346l. Corkery vs. Work.
No. 5l64 State VS.. Tinney.
No. 1872 City vs.. Louisiana Mutual In
surance Company.
No. 34l0. Theurer VS.. Blasco.
No. 5206. Trisconi ys. DUMAS.
No. $3.50. Rochereau VS.. Cation.
No. 3435 Spetere VS.. Caesar.
No. 34j3. Wood vs.. Phoenix Insurance.
Company.
BY CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELING.
No. 46l9. State VS.. Charles Clinton ct al.
Intervention of G.. A. Sheridan as holder OF
levee bonds.-From Superior District Court.
The question is the validity of the bonds
under act No. 81 of February %, 1870.
There is no conflict between the act and
articles ITO and lS of the constitution. 1t
does not take private property without
Just compensation. The Legislature Is to
determine whether the tax is to be levied
on all the landa in the State or on particH-
lar localities. Judgment dissolving the in
junction affirmed
On rehearing. The law is not affected by
the constitutional limit of the State debt,
as it was passed before it was adopted.
Levees are not "local" works. They are
too gigantic for even the State to maintain.
Their regulation is in the legislative discre-
tion. In its sphere it is supreme. State vs.
Volkman; State We. Fagan, % A. $50. De-
cree adhered to.
BY JUSTICE TALIAFERRO.
No. 1898. City of New Orleans, appel
liant, VS.. James Stafford.-From Superior
District Court. The court reviews the act
of 1866 authorizing private markets; that
OF 1870, extending the limits of the city and
giving power to establish markets, and the
ordinance of December :, 1873, fixing the
license at $780, Defendant took one as a
wholesale dealer at 500. He has not taken
one as private market keeper from the
city, but relies on one from the State under
the act of 1866. Taken in connection with
the ordinance, his claim is questionable
Because the city has leased the markets
for 1874 it does not follow it has nc
interest. The act of 1874 requires the
city to carry out tts provisions
The Legislature has power to de
clare that private markets shall not
be kept open within twelve squares OF a
public one. solus popsth Supremo est ler
Defendants privilege was acquired under
the right of the sovereign to examine the
police power to regulate peace and good
order, and maintain cleanliness and salu
brity. IL the danger of epidemics the city
must obviate local causes of disease. AS 9
sanitary measure markets may be abol
ished The lessee could not claim the right
to keep open. The act Of 1874 does not VIC
late vested rights and is not unconstitu
tional, and its object is expressed in 1T
title. AS far as it goes it repeals the act o.
1866. Defendants market is within one
square of the French Market in violation o
law. Judgment reversed, and furthel
ordered that the injunction be Perpetuate(
and plaintiff to recover 500.
Justice Wyly dissents, and Justice How
ell expressed the opinion that the defend
ant had complied with. the law, and cOult
not be deprived Of his right under hi
license, and that the city had no interest il
the case.
No. 5297. James tafford VS.. city of New
Orleans, appellant.-From Superior DistrIc
Court. For reasons in No. 1898, judg
ment reversed and injunction dissolved.
BY JUSTICE HOWELL.
No 3OOl. A. P. Field and Jessie r. Ponde
vs.. John l.. Williams and rex, appellant
From Fifth District Court. On rehearing
Williams embezzled $4,000 and was con
victed. HIS counsel, A. P. Field, obtained
a new trial, and Ponder concluded not t.
$500 with w. n. Rogers, and gave al
order for it to Field. He refused to delive
it. A nolle prOse9ui was entered in tn
case There was such an agreement on tn
part of the prosecuting witness that tn
court should not recognize. The partie
can not be made to comply. Judgment Q
non-sut affirmed.
BY JUSTICE WHY.
No. 1920. Jacob MILESTONE VS.. S. N. Raw
Inns, appellant-From the Fourth Distric
Court. Where the appellee joins in the az
peal, no claim of damages for frivolou
appeal can be allowed; but the appelle
waving the damages, there is no nsces
sity for rehearing. Judgment amended
No. 53lS. RhOCa y. " nlue vs.. Nyra Z
characterization of curator ad hoe VI
Judge of the Fifth District Court Tb
court did not erin appointing curator a
hoe; the defendant being nonresident
and the security appearing insolvent,
was proper to order a new bond. Prohib
| ton disallowed.
Superior District Court.
Louisiana Savings Bank VS.. H. e. Wa
modification alleges the possession of
promissory note of $1,000 received as co
| lateral on note of E. A. Burke for $lOOt
on which there is credit of SlOO, an
prays for judgment Of 5000.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following d.
cision:
| Louisa Fredericks, tutrix, vs.. Rober
| Fasnacht.-The plaintiff alleges that sh
leased the defendant certain property &
the Halfway House; that he took possessio
| of it and during the lease neglected to tax
| proper care of it; that he damaged it YER
seriously by digging up and carrying ava
valuable fruit and ornamental trees an
shrubs growing thereon, and by turnin
horses into the promises to Craze and pa
ture, neglecting the protection of the prem
ises, whereby various articles belongin
| +horoto warA carrind awav until the hOUl