New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-06-06
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, JUNE S. 1875,
United States Circuit Court.

1 SAAOhOAXS JUNE " AS"Os
United states Circuit Court.
Present. Hon. w. B. Woods, circuit
| Judge.
North German Lloyds vs. Commissioners
| of Immigration. of error allowed,
retnrnabIe the first Monday Of October.
F. N. Ames, trustee. Va. New Orleans,
Mobile and Texas NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
perpetuated and title of trustee confirmed.
Superior District Csurt.
City OF New Orleans vs.. B. Bernichop
ard titty.tive others.-Rule for an injunc
| ton to close the private markets. Defend
| ants answer is. that there are no public
| markets; that this property is farmed out,
| and in the distribution Of valuable stands
| preference is given; that greater sums ar e
| charged than allowed by law; that sanitary
measures are neglected. refrigerators and
| ice boxes forbidden. the meats and vege-
tables exposed to the air and can not be as
| we'll preserved as in private markets; th at
| the city has no interest, having parted with
her property, and her effort is simply to
| force defendants to hire stalls; that she can
not suffer an irreparable injury, for ut the
utmost her loss is but sixty cents per day
or $2l9 per year from each defendant.
Injunction refused. Merits to be heard
June Is.
Union Baptist School Church vs.. John
Holmes ct al.-InjunetiOn restraining de-
PENDANTS from interfering with plaintiff dis
solved and suit dismissed.
Perseverance No. Is vs. Merchants
National Bank OF New York.-Injunct ion
ON proceedings in Fifth District Court on
writ OF seizure and sale dissolved and ule
dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
New Orleans, Mobile and Texas Railroad
Company vs.. city of New Orleans.-Ap-
plication for appropriation of five parcels
Of land in the Livingston compromise,
situated between Caliope, Water and
Grod streets, and $50 feet from Water
street toward the river; that under sec
ton fifteen of act No. 26, approved Feb
ruary II, 1869, the company were author
lied to use the land To erect frei ght
depot; that by section five of act No. 81, ap-
proved February 81, 1870, the title was
confirmed as against New Orleans, but
there is dominion and fee simple of the
corporation aport from the claim Of the
State; that applicant has possession and
has Enclosed and occupied the land, and
recognizes the city's right to cOmpenss ton,
but the price demanded is extravagant and
the city doesn't know if it has the power
to sell. and prays that three disinterested
persons may be appointed to estimate the
compensation under section four of act No.
%. approved August 10, 1863 Rule return
able june l6.
Cdm0 vs.. bduo-A 10 oAprO-
pirate land between Canal, Delta and
P6ylras streets, with $50 feet toward the
river.
Samuel p. Blanc vs. Pleasant Plain Meth
= u Episcopal Church.-Suit on four notes.
I'D November l, 1873. amounting to
$4O7 %.
Citizens Bank vs. Thomas L. Maxwell
Suit for $462, assessment on thirty-three
shares of stock.
Same VS.. Nicholas Gras.-F0r $l94, on fif-
teen shares of stock.
Same VS.. Leon G. Selle.-For $598, on
seventy-tive shares of stock.
T. j. Burlington ct ais va. Charles Clinton.
Application for manlamus for payment
of appropriation of act No. 35 of 1875, of
$22l4 80 for relief of T. J. Burlington, B.
Duchein and Philip Machet. Rule returna-
bic June 8.
second District Court.
Tutorship of Francis and Melvil Clark
and Christian Jacob opened.
Charles Huck prays to be emancipated.
Fourth District Court.
Abraham Cohen vs.. Charles Morgan 49,
Action for damages of $500 for illegal ejec-
ton from defendants cars. Jury out.
Fifth District Court.
State ex rel. M. E. Livaudais and H. X.
Arbo-Habeas corpus. One Chandons sued
his lessee, Duffey, for rent and obtained q
provisional seizure. The rule to set it aside,
alleging that the good came within the
5000 exemption, was set aside on the ground
that the exemption did not apply to land
lords privilege. Judgment and feri facias
on it obtained. Dufey's application for an
injunction restraining execution was dis
missed. On his affidavit the REALTORS, the
attorney Of Chandons, and the deputy
sheriff supposed to have executed the tieri
facias, were arrested and condemned to i'm
prisonment by the Second Municipal Court
on the authority of section two, act Ne. II,
approved February 20, 1874, making it a
misdemeanOr to seize exempted property.
Judge Cullum said: THAT in considering
the acts amending c. p, 644, he had con.
cluded on the hearing of the rule in the
original case that the section and the
binary tieri facias, where there was
no privilege, or at most only the priv
ilege Of a judgment. 1t was never in
tended that the provisions should apply
where there was lien or privilege. G. c.,
2705, gives to landlords privilege and q
right to retain possession in the nature of q
pledge, Is A., 5 NJ l6 A., 1893; C. C., 1918 and
1919 declare that he may retain possession
until he is paid, and that his right is of a
higher nature than mere privilege. The
title of act No. SO, approved April %, 1872,
is: ''to amend article 644 of the Code of
Practice" and contains no reference to the
Civil Code. The body of the act refers to
C. G., 1892, to which article 644 is to
conform. Act No. 10, approved February
90, 1874, amending this act contains no
further reference. 1t is settled principle
that a statute can not be repealed by i'm
plication. 1t follows that G. c., 27O5,
together. To hold it affected is the
say it can be repealed without re-
ferring to it. Further than this the sub
.iect Of the second section of these acts is
not referred to in the titles, and therefore
the misdemeanOr created has no cOnstitu-
t,onal existence: Const. La, art. ia. Even
admitting that it had, it could never have
been intended to create conflict between
superior and inferior courts; in these cases
the superior court is compelled to act.
This court had exclusive jurisdiction in the
original case. 1t did nothing but its duty,
and its acts can only be reviewed by the
Supreme Court on an appeal. There is
nothing in the law that makes a municipal
court revisory tribunal over the acts of
superior court. Until the decisions of this
court are modified by the Supreme Court
they are immaculate. For an inferior court
TO treat its decisions as a nullity and punish
it's officers for obeying them is to say it's
Judgment is no shield to protect them.
They would be placed between the upper
and neither millstones. II they fail to obey
the orders of this court they will surely be
punished, and they would be responsible
ON their bonds. When they did obey, this
inferior court Furnishes them for contempt
of its mandate. 1t is absurd that this puny
arm should stop the execution Of the man
date of this court. | have no hesitation in
directing the discharge of these applicants.
Sixth District Court.
Alexander Walker VS.. A. NJ. Holbrook ct
als.-Leave given plaintiff to amend by ad-
dition of the Herald and Picayune Printing
Companies and j. Hernandez. Motion to