New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-21

taXeQhaS capital. 1t is invested in a sugar shed
under a contract of the city with Fleitas The
sum is employed in the business of keeping sugar
| shed on this locus pubcus: 1t is not within the
meaning of act No. AZ of 1871 an investment in
real estate. Judgment affirmed.
| No. 5l35 Samuel Fasnacht, appellant, vs.. Michael
Frank--Frem Fifth District Court of Orleans
Judgment dissoiying PLAINTIFFS injunction with
DANA ges affirmed.
No. 5l49. Mrs. A. G O'Hara, appellant, vs. Joseph
n; Folweu and ID sheritf-From Fifth district Court
note OF the decedent OHara the representative OF
the succession should have been party. JuGg.
ment annulled
JUSTICE MORGAN.
No. 1898. Emily ]. Robertson VS.. Thomas J. Emer.
son. appellant.-From Eighth District Court of Or
leans. The Eighth District Court was given the
sole power of Injunction, except when required by
other courts to enforce their iurisdictinn The
plaintiff might have obtained an in junction in the
Seventh Court on its process, but she could also
seek relief from the Eighth Court. Judgment
affirmed.
Justice WHY dissenting says the Eighth Court
was established to remedy the conflicting jurisdie-
tons III the matter of injunctions If permitted to
restrain the process OF another court the object of
the law is destroyed. Two courts can not at the
same time regulate the execution OF Judgment
He does not consider The Legislature intended to
give the Eighth District Court concurrent iurisdic
ton with regard to the execution of judgments of
other courts.
No. 4.l6 j. Louis Lalaurie, appellant, Vs. c. S.
Sauvinet sheriff.-From Fifth District Court of Or
leans. Plaintiff had received funds from Gerodias to
speculate with, and gave mortgage in favor OF
Harrison, to be for the benefit OF GerOdias who
had possession of the mortgage note. He then
was entitled to an injunction restraining the sale
OF bis property. Judgment reversed the notes to
be returned to plaintiff
No. $780, James N. Kane, appellant, VS.. John W
Robertson.-Fron Seventh District Court of Or
leans. There had been good acceptance of drafts
against the proceeds of cotton in the hands of the
garnlshee, and the district Judge properly held
that they were u be paid.
No. 1850. Succession OF E. A. Patterson.-From
Second district Court OF Orleans. Judgment
affirmed.
No 34oi. Mrs. A. NJ. Winter, appellant, vs. city
of New OrleaIs.-From the Fifth District Court of
Orleans. Action riparian proprietor under C. C.
500 and R. s. 49, for the batture formed in front of
her property. The plaintiff not owning the soil Oh
the edge of the water and purchased property
fronting or Front Levee, the court can not alter
her title. Judgment affirmed.
No. 1855. Patrick Higgins vs.. c. C. Haley.-From
the Fifth District Court OF Orleans. Plaintiff
should have been heard on the allegation that the
jury had been improperly Influenced. Case re-
mauded.
No. 1913. Succession of E. A. Patterson-From
the Second District Court OF Orleans. The dative
Parliamentary executor was dismissed and dam
ages awarded against him. There being no evi.
dence in the record to how much money he
should have in his hands the Is remanded.
Otherwise. the Judgment is affirmed.
ReggiO.-FrOm Second Judicial District. The Code
OF Practice, article 258 prescribes the way an at
tachment may be dssol we'd. 1t is not necessary
to proceed BY rule to show cause. Judgment at.
Hrmeu.
Superior District Court.
State vs. Charles Clinton ct al.-Interventions O l
Elias George, for 5000 for warrants DESTROYED; of
c. NJ. Covintz, for 5 100 for of L. NJ Eddings
murderer Of 3. oomeld. for value $50 COPIES of the
Code of Practice and $50 copies OF Revised Statutes
of Henry street Adjutant General, for appropria
ton to cover expenses claiming an advance of
$4,000 and Tor $4,000 for militia; of Albert Peters
for $500 as employe of Secretary OF State, and of
J. W. Madden, tor $780, filed.
Judge Hawkins rendered the following decision:
Crescent City Gaslight Company VS.. New Or
leans Gaslight Company, State OF Louisiana inter.
venoI; city of New OrleanG intervenor.-This &C.
ton is brought by the Crescent City GasHght Com
pauy, which is shown to have been incorporated by
an act OF the General Assembly approved April 20
1870, which act vests IN the company the exclusive
right to make, distribute and vend gas in the city
of New Orleans for period Of fifty years. com
legged in the petition that the charter of the New
Orleans Gaslight Company, which was granted in
1885, expires snd ceases, by the terms of the grant,
on the first day OF April 1875, and that the exclu
sve right to make and veld gas in the city of New
Orleans from and after that date accrues to the
plaintiff by the terms and conditions of its charter
That notwithstanding the charter of the New Or
leans Gaslght Company ceases on the first day of
April, 1875 oy its own terms, yet said company is
insisting that it has the right, and proposes TO
tinue to make and vend gas in the city of New Or
leans for period of twenty years from and after
April l, 1873, under an additional act of the General
Assembly passed IN March. 1860. This act of 1860,
it is alleged, is unconstitutional and void because
the title does not disclose the object of the act
and therefore, the defendant is entitled to claim
nothing underit.
The State of Louisiana interviewed in the suit
alleging that she had an interest in seeing the
laws faithfully executed. Tine allegations of the
petition of intervention on the part of the State
adopt substantial al the averments of the peti.
ton OF the plaintiff the Crescent City Gasflght
Company, and claim nothing for the State herself
The City of New Orleans interviewed in her own
behalf and opposed the pretensions Of the plaintiff
and those of the State as ntervepor as well AS the
pretentsIons of the defendant the New Orleans
Gaslight Company, and claims for herself that the
act of 1900 which in terms extends the charter of
the New Orleans Gaslighu Company for twenty
years, is unconstitutional, Aull and void, and that
the city of New Orleans has the right secured to
her by the charter of the New Orleans Gaslight
Company to purchase the works at the expiration
thereof on the first of April, 1875 and u conse.
quence following she has vista right to make
and vend gas on her own account, as well against
the paintlf'S professions OF exclusive right as
against the defendant, whose right to make and
vend gas ceases on that date.
The defendant, the New Orleans Gas Light
Company nrst Pleads the peremptory exception
OF DO cause Of action being shown by the antitfs
missed. An answer was also fled, which put at
issue all the averments of the plaintiff and the in
tervenors, averrinS arlrmatively the cOnstitu-
tiOnality of the act of 1850, which extends their
charter for twenty years from and after the first
OF April 1873. The exceptions ard answers were
tried together
The first question presented for solution is the
exception OF no cause OF action, for if it be held
that the petition shows no cause of action, the
suit would be dismissed without further examin
alton.
In dealing with the question of the cause of &C.
ton the claim OF the plaintiff must first be con-
bidered, and for this purpose The position of the
defendant must be noticed.
The plaintiff rests his right of action in PRESENT.
solely on this exclusive right which arises the |
first OF April, 1872 for that that day he has
cured to him the right 10 make and vend gas in |
the city OF New Oreana that the assertion of the
vend gas Oh and after that day they 1.-THE plain. |
tifs) are in present. injured and damaged by such
report, because by such assertion and report their
credit and character are injured. For that by the
terms OF their charter they are required to be |
ready to supply the wants of the people Of New |
Orleans with gasights on the first of April 1875;
TIA we'd
illegally, under an act void for unconstitutiOnalty,
to publish to the world that it has the right to fur
period OF twenty years longer their ability to do
so would be greStly impaired if not entirely de-
'troyed, ana therefore; they having shown a
present injury resulting from such pretensions on
he part OF the defendant, have d right Of action
o redress such injury without waiting until the
ime arrives for them TO commence active opera
IONS
The action is assimilated to meditation, though
lot Iuctitation itself. the plaintiff and defendant
lain the right under different grants from the
anne source or power, the Legislature, to make
md vend gas for the people of the city of New Or.
cans at the same time. The plaintiff, the Crescent
lily Gas Company resting its right on an excu- !
i've grant that the claim Of the defendant is
SANDER upon its title The right OF the parties
n tina controversy being derived from statutes
s well as imposing numerous obligations and du. |
les upon them gives to the parties the right to
ave their differences settled judicially without
elay and before they are required authorized
o enter actively as rivals into the business Of
laklng gas. For tue making and vending of gas
,r the use OF the public is in some meas
re public right, which the public have an |
lterest in having secured TO them beyond dis |
ute or doubt. If, therefore. it should be fouad
hat the right of the defendant to make and yend |
as under existing legislation ceases on the first
april 1875. and that right is gwen exclusively
, the plalntH then. it might happen, in case of
ostpouenent OF the question until that date, that |
10 city OF New Orleans would be left in darkness |
y a time ior want OF the necessary. preparation
2 the part OF the lawful agent to make il. con- |
uue, Therefore, lEat the petition C'SeIOSeS |
ause OF action. 1t is UNNECESSARY to notice the
tervention OF the State, further than 10 remark |
lat she las disclosed Inherent il the litigation
tween the plaintiff and defendant which would |
any way be affected by decision adversely to |