The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-06-12
THE COURTS.
limited States Circuit Court.


The bill in chancery of Abraham Hayem.
filed in the United States Circuit Court, and
for which J. r. Beckwith, Esq, secured re-
straining order in Mobile from Judge Woods,
alleges as follows: That during the month OF
January, 1875, the city of New Orleans was
the owner Of certain markets within its limits.
On the 18th December, 1874, the city leased
to the complainant the Soraparu and st. Ber-
nard, as we'll as other markets, part OF the
rental Of which was paid in cash, and for the
balance notes were given, properly Endorsed.
He alleges that the city authorities repre-
sented at the time the lease was entered into
the city authorities represented that the
statutes of the State relative to private mar
kets should be vigorously and effectually
enforced and that this was one consideration
for his entering into the contract That after
complainant had become formed the city au-
thorities were lax and allowed private markets
to be carried on to his detriment to the
number of three hundred.
The prayer is for an injunction restraining
the city from interfering with Hayem in the
enjoyment of his rights under the lease, and
that, further, the city be inhibited from car
rying into effect their intentions to dispossess
complainant of his markets.
United States District Attorney Beckwith
has fled an information against A. Zarnowski,
master of the steamer JEANNE, for the viola
ton of the United States laws relative to
steamboats, by running his steamer on Lake
Pontchartrain without having on board two
copies Of the inspection papers
Mrs. Myra Clark Gaines has filed Pc
tition in this court against Richard De Gray,
attorney-at-law, for $500 damages She
alleges that De Gray, in his argument OF the
case of Rhoda White vs.. Myra Clark Gaines,
ia the Fifth District Court, uttered false,
libelous and slanderous untruths.
Superior District Court.
In the private market case of the city Alfred
Shaw ESQ filed an exception to the demand
of the city, the grounds of which are mis-
joinder, lis pendens, and that there is no
cause of action disclosed.
He further says that there is no such war;
ranty or guarantee on the part of plaintiff as
lessor, as expressed and implied in this suit,
and that act No. 81 of 1874, if affecting de-
PENDANTS. is in violation of the Constitution
Of the United States, being an ca post tacto
law, violating and impairing the obligations
of q contract established by the law of the
State authorizing them to establish private
market, and depriving them Of their equal
rights as citizens, and in violation of the Con-
stitution of the State Of Louisiana for the
same reasons, and because its object is not
expressed in its title, passed not in further
ance of any sanitary purpose or police power,
but in violation Of the true policy thereof.
Mr.. Shaw prays that plaintiffs suit be dis
missed upon these exceptions, and, if not, he
pleads the same for answer, and denies all
and singular the allegations Of plaintiff, SO
far rs having any tendency to entitle the
Plaintiff to the judgment or relief prayed for
He further denies that there are any public
markets within the terms or meaning OF the
law situated as described, and that the mar
kets claimed to be such have lost their public
character, and he specially denies all in
debtedness or liability to the city of New Or
leans, and prays that this cause may be tried
by q jury and for judgment in his favor.