New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-02-04

euDoK1oF Dlsl11et CouFt.
State Of Louisiana ex rel. Mississippi IN
and Mexican Gulf Ship Canal C0mpan
vs. Mayor and Board Of Administrstors I
tho city Of New Orleans.-The petition {
Intervention Of John @. A. Fellows, resit
ing in the city of New Orleans, respec
fully yepresents thu he IL the owner of re,
estate, land situated in each of the fou
drainage districts described in the petitio
Of the plaintiff, on portions Of which all tb
drainage tax is paid, on other portions
part only is paid and on the other remain
assessment has been paid; that he Is willin
to pay said unpaid portion Of assessment
or tax, provided the same when paid shal
be expended az was contemplated in tn
original acts and for the benefit Of pet
TONERS property as was therein provided
But petitioner alleges and AYERS that SAT-
drainage tax or assessment has been divert
ed, and the attempt is made by these pro
ceedings to divert said tax or assossmen
moro etfectually and to enforce the cOllec
| ton, that the said funds may be NOR,
speedily diverted and lost TO the owners o
property, and especially Of this petitioner
and from the purposes contemplated in thu
original eDactments of the Legislature.
Petitioner AYERS that the act of the Legis
lature, No. 80 of 1871, was In violation Of
the constitution of the State of Louisiana
and OF the Cnited States, it being an at
tempt to take the property of petitioner
from him, and not for public purpose, 5ul
for the private gain and emolument of the
said Mississippi and Mexican Gulf Shin
Canal Company. and without just or any
compensation. That the Legislature. in
order to make as large a contract as DOS.
synI
not at all necessary for the protection and
improvement of the property within the
drainage districts, and BY legislative en-
actment attempted to make q contract
between the said company on the one part
and all the owners Of land within the said
four drainage Districts on the other, for
the performance of work not at all
necessary for the benefit of the pro.
prietors of land, and at q price more
than twice the cost Of the work to be
performed, and which said landowners
were to pay to the said company to theie
lrapoverishment and it's enrichment. That
the cost of the excavating of canals and
embankments named in the act, can be
made for lees than one-balf the contract price
petitioner further represents, that be of.
Tered to do the work for thirty-tive cents
per cubic yard, for both excavations and
and that he owns squares of
ground in the third and fourth drainage
districts which would not sell for enough to
pay the drainage tax or assessment: that
IN fact. the forced collection of this tax
would oonfscate his property, and be of no
practical benefit to him. That one third of
the tax assessed is more that sufficient to
protect and drain tho entire portion of the
pity OF New Orleans on the west bank of
ne river requiring protection and drainage.
That petitioners interest herein exceeds
b2OOO. and he fears. should he permit this
uit to 60 on by default. he would be in.
ured irreparably.
wherefore, petitioner prays to be allowed
Q intervene herein and oppose the preten-
ions OF the said Mississippi and Mexican
Warner Van Norden, for whose benefit f. |
ues, and they and the city Of New Orleans |
q cited to answer this petition of interyen-
ion and third opposition, aud that said act |
~. ~ Of 1871, be declared in violation of |
ne constitution Of this State and of the |
United States, and illegal, null and void. |
nd that the contract between the State of |
'ouisiana and tho said company, under said
ct No. 30 of 1871, be declared untr apsfer-
sbie. and that the said transfer, by notarial
Of before A. Hero, Jr., notary. as set ND in
lid petition, by the said company to the
lid Van Norden, be declared null and void
nd Of no effect. and petitioner further
rays for costs and all general relief.
This petition Of Intervention and third
'position was filed. and parties cited az
:ayed for.
The Union Insurance Company of New
rleans petition. for judgment against the
mpire Parish Packet Company for $751; Is
fve per cent, from October g. 1879.
lance Ut premium on a policy of insur-
ICE.
ExcpprynNo
State ex rel Mississippi and Mexican Gulf
ip Canal Company VS.. Mayor and Ad-
nistrators of New Orleans-City At
rney Jonas fills exception: l. That j,
sthers, Jr., is without power or authority |
d Mexican Gulf Ship Canal ComDanv
that he is the lawful president thereof.
That neither Mathers or any other per.
has been authorized by the company to
titute suit. 3. That relatsr ia not en-.
ed to mandamus as q remedy.
'tate OK rel. N. COnnell vs.. CITY Of New
leans.-ExceptiOn l. Relator has made i,
showing for mandamus, and by ordinary
'cess has adequate remedy. g That by
lstitutional amendment ratified NOyem.
!, 1874, it is provided that after it's ratifi-
ION the debt OF the city of New Orleans &
not DO increased upon any pretext. and
t no evidence OF indebtedness or war
It for payment of money, except there r
each to pay such warrant. shall issue | Ii
sr January l, 1875. 3. That the act of
City Surveyor can not impose any obi.
ION without the assent of the Council.
That, If otherwise legal, the city of Car p
ton NO longer exists, and there can not I,
issued improvement bonds for the city n
Csrrollton. 5. The improvement bonds y
New Orleans could not be issued except y
n n 20 4 krA 1 N
Y for contracts made in accordance with "
len ten, act No. 48 Of 1871, within the n
ner limits Of the city. 6. That nv law -
Council il allowed discretion in issuing y
roveUent bonds, and further, they have -
er bound the city for said claim or I'D. ~
led it. II
ANSWER AND RECONvENTION. 8
autonis Insurance Company vs. Thomas g
invention. The Firemer's Charitable il
ociation and Thomas O'Connor, chief T.
neer, for answer to the petition filed A!
IN, deny each and every allegation, and
n trial Of the cause will REQUIRE strict j.
legal proof thereof. Je
aspOndents for further and epecial an ].
: say that the Ba5c0ck fire extingujsher. J.
zone OF its sizes, shapes aud forms, lie ~
'tual in quenching fire or in putting Ie
, flame except in its incipient stage. Ee
that owing to the very limited benefit j.
ng at any time, and under any circum.
ces, from the size Of such machine. the
l0yment thereof ut fires, where it's
ence is calculated to produce certain
rious results, is not only inexpedient ~
improper and ought not to be sustained rs
be court Il
lrther answering, these respondents -
hat the management and control Of Sh
within the territorial limits of LOuisi. ~"
sppertains to the police and good gov
rent of the State, and in the exercise 4
lat power 1t 10 competent for the State Ma
aopt such measures for extinguishing
agrations a. she may deem right and 4