New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-19
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, APRIL 18, 1874.
United States Circuit Court.

I O~AsoW StdtCS NAECu1t OVuEks
United States VS.. Several Distilleries.-
On motion OF counsel for S. w. Hammond
IN case leave to bond is allowed, the sure
ties OF Michael Gernon and H. s. Heart
were accepted.
Superior District Court.
State vs.. Charles Clinton ct al.-Injunc
non on the appropriation bill. The AttOr
ney General called attention to the fact
.hat IN the matter Of Semmes g. Mott, anC
w. d.. Hunt, in:ervenore, he had taken 81
appeal Immediately on the Judgment being
signed. He had had ten days to take ar
appeal, but had done it Immediately in or
der to prevent complications. Yet he had
learned thrOugh'rhe State Treasurer, that
the Auditor had, notwithstanding the ap-
| peal, Issued his warrants and the claims
had been paid. He inquired Of the clerk
and was informed no order had been is
| sued. Ii the Auditor had acted on misin-
formation he desired to take no steps, but
II he was to be deprived of all his rights as
the representative of the interests Of the
State, 1t would be useless for him to ap.
pear IN court. He would take rule on the
Inc Auditor TO show cause why he should
not be punished for contempt, ard the
court made 1t returnable on Wednesday,
the twenty second instant.
Inc intervention of H. c. Warmoth for
EQUIV, declaring he had complied with the
conditions, was filed.
State ex rel. w. P Noble vs. Charles
Gin ton.-The answer OF defendant denies
the allegations Of the relatOr, and claims
That the debt OF tie State exceeded the con.
stltutlonal limit of $25. 0UO,O0O when the
Appropriation was made.
The State also interveues, claiming 70 he
the real party interested; maintains that
uhe Appropriation is in violation of the con-
sutuIonal limit of sos 100000; that the
Eegislature had no power to make it, and
tnat 1t was in the nature of donation.
City OF New Orleans We. James Stafford;
James Stafford vs.. city of New Orleans
On af1davit OF B. N. Turnbull, Administra-
tor OF Commerce, that the interest of the
city exceeded $500, an appeal was taken.
Folsom Brothers We city of New Or
ieans;,Rule for new trial discharged.
A. r. Grlswold vs.. city Of New Orleans.
flalntlf alleges illegal and extravgant as
sessment, and prays decree of reduction.
State ex rel. George E. Gett ct al, VS..
Charles Clinton. Plaintiffs, employees of
Inc Legislature, pray for a mandamus to
secure payment OF their vouchers.
Superior Criminal Court.
Inc following cases at present comprise
the docket Of this court.
The flrst cases fixed were for Wednesday,
the twenty-second instant.
CpOA OUUusOU, UdCk Lee, u. r.
Lichnisky, A. G. Billings, Thomas Movers.
r. d. Michel, Pierre Punjois, Henry Hamil- |
Lon and jesse Wood. William Watrey, |
Achille Garner, Edward Rigio, p. Comasky.
George Hayes, NJ. F. Rogers, Frank Car
penter, Bartholomew Touro, Mary Ann
alias Lucy Williams, Richard Bell and
1ohn Jones, John Garvey and Charles
Earle W. W. McCulloch, John McCor-
NICK, lsldore Mccormick and George w.
C u Nelson SEVERN and G. w. McCarty,
[homas EDglander and Maggie Highlander.
Joseph Hugel, Corrine Scott. Roger Muir.
,hy, n: Terrebonne, Bowlegged Donivap,
'ohn Newton, Thomas Kingsman.
Accessory to murder-J. NJ. Roach,
hape-J0seph Collins.
Arson-Anthony ORourke, j. Rivalde.
bnrglary-Etienne johnson, Kinch Ma
one, Joseph Powers, William Smith, John
VILLAINS. Charles johnson, George Powers.
Ohm Harper, Richard Perkins, John Moore.
iced, T. J. Mckay, John Britton, William
'ennison, John p Collins.
ferl1ry-Dennis Downing, Peter Vim
ent, Eliza Edmonds, Henry c. Bull, Henry
tege, Charles Clinton, James Gallagher.
lilam Matte, George Duffy, Mrs. Duffy,
homas Il. Duty, Jack Paynac, G. Remand. |
red Houhhan, A. Marquee.
accessory to rObbery-J. NJ Roach,
hobbery-James Ford, William Hall.
harles and John Lancaster, Dan Egan.
I'm bezziement-George Hunter, Charles
'atrlgant. Wallace Woods, Mrs. B. Fell
tia, Jacob Hawkins, z. j. Conner. Peter
ltson, +. McKenna, Julien Fellon. L. B.
orel. -
Forgery-E. C. Lewis. two cases: f. a.
,pulous, George Fritz, William Carr. alias e
Iekey, two cases; Isaac Landman.
Grand Larceny-Elodie Pierce, Mary Jane s
'llou, Ed. Manning, Katie Shannon, Henry
'rez.
False OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES Paysart, J. a
!Ium, Il. cigars, Cummings, Charles a
lntoh' 1our cases; W. w: Mccullough, j. T.
OWL; a. Cartwright, James Mcclure. .
ndy Rice. al
hlsdemeanor in offce-B. Campbell. s.
oppression IN otice-W. w. Mccullough. %
o cases. Do
purchasing for cash with intent. etc. az
red ST. Marc, N. Febre, alias Manuel. Ii
jarrylng concealed weapon-Georpe al
liaMs. IN
First District Court. la
PLEADED NOT GUILTY, i'm
assault and battery-Felix Green. George an
ware, Arthur Dejean, James DHeme- 81
ri, d. Lancaster, Joseph Parman. lO1
'arceny - Michael Evans, alias Irish,
or Williams, William Davis. sa
second District Court. alb
nccessions OF Jean E. Communy. George lee
rogers and Catharine Sollinger, wife of ~
4. MoritZ, opened. 100
[aria Communy, Mary Clara Hagan and rs
,abeth Il. Samuels pray to be enamel ~
ed. al
Fourth District Court. &C
were rendered in the follow. S.
cases: p
,hn Lewis VS.. Louisiana Portable Rail. wa
Company.-Judgment for plaintiff. G 1a6
rs Catharine Flnnan vs. James + wei
Of property decreed. 10
nbrOse LeitZ vs. Mrs William Dalton
gment for defendant. MT
+. Dumas VS.. A. Mary.-Ipiunction riv,
Owed, WITH ten per cent damages. Re. frs
demand of A. Mary dismissed. cies
hodrlguez vs. Matilda J. O'Brien. De- day
OF divorce appealed from by defend side
que
Fifth District Court, cas- cas-
dge Cullom rendered the following s sho
sion: S Sno
e. Madeline suderee We. H. G. Gusto the the
a.-fetlhoner alleges she has ,, d,
ollshed herself in business. supporting "ai
amily by the profits, that her husband QUO
solvent, that it is necessary for the 10 al
.rvation OF her property that there Ia
Id be separation. The husband pleads R Rrne
Sonoidi ISSUE. Under T.. T.. 2iO2. the | $50 a
can not recognize petitioner as the Tier
rate owner OF the property, although it rem rem
fruit OF her personal industry. The WI
contrac leu enter into the community. is gu
portion of the prayer must be rejected % &C e
lse the property of the debtor is the sooG
80 f~ "a Aie creultOfs. In suit chas
10 WiIe LOT separation of prOperty freig
2 to the insolvency of the brsh.p1 | WI
ffcient TO admit nroof ~. - here
- 70 - piooi 1Hdt sne mas tne 1t ha
W "aho acquisition. Meyer vs. co
"a A lo5. tihls deciGiOp ia | u bu