New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-03-10

used in any way prohibited by laws Or or.

diDances; Rev. c. G.. 49l.
Although proprietor may do with his
estate whatever he pleases, still he can not
make any work on 1t which may deprive
his neighbor Of the liberty Of enjoying his
own or which may be the cause Of any
damage to him; Rev. G. c., 661.
Although ore may not be at liberty to
| make any work by which his neighbours
buildings may be damaged, yet every one
has the liberty Of doing on his own ground
whatsoever he pleases, although it should
occasion come Inconvenience to his neigh
Dor. Thus-he who is not subject to any
servitude originating from partlcu-
lar agreement in that respect may
raise his house Is high as he
pleases, although by such elevation he
should darken the lights of his neighbor's
house, because this act occasions only incOn.
| venience. but not q real damage. Rev. c.
c., art. 66S. 1t is for you. gentlemen of the
| jury, to say whether the erection and con-
tinued maintenance Of the Objectionable
bsrricade or fence in question causes incon-
venience or real damage to the plaintiff. If
| you find that it causes only inconvenience
| by darkening the lights or windows of the
| plaintiff, the law will not compel its re-
| moval. If, on the other hand, you find that
| it causes real damage 10 the plaintiff, either
| pecuniarily or mentally, by making him and
| tho mem 5ers of his household the objects of
| tho remarks and scandals Of persons pass
ing by, as he alleges, then the law does not
| permit its erection, and will require it's
| demolition and removal.
You are next to determine the claim of
plaintiff for damages. Every act of man
| that causes damage to another obliges him
| by whose fault it happened to repair it.
| Rev. G.. c., art 23l5. Every person is re-
sponsible for the damage he occasions, not
merely by his act, but bv his negligence.
his imprudence, or his want Of skill. Rev.
G. e., art. 23l6. If you are satisfied from
| the evidence that the plaintiff has
suffered damage at the hands of the defend
ant YOU will give a verdict in favor of
| plaintiff for sucn amount as you think he
has been damaged in. Although the gen.
| eral rule is that damages are the amount of
| the loss the creditor has sustained or the
| gain of which he has been deprived, yet
| there are cases in which damages may be
| assessed without calculating altogether on
| the pecuniary loss or the p1ivation of pecu-
| mary gain to the psrty. Where the con-
| tract has for its object the qualification Of
some intellectual enjoyment, whether in
| religion, morality or taste, or some conve-
| nience or other legal Observation-Disclosures
these are not appreciated in money by the
parties-yet damages are due for their
breach. A contract for a religious or char
liable foundation, y promise OF marriage or
an engagement for work OF some one of
| the fine arts are objects and examples Of
tins rule.
this rule, as we'll as in cases of
offenses, quasi otfenses and quasi con-
| tracts, much discretion must be left to the
judge or Jury, while in the other cases they
have none, but are bound to give such dam
ages, under the above rules, as will fully
indemnify the creditor, whenever the con-
tract has been broken by the fault, negli-
gence, fraud or bad faith Of the debtor.
You will then impure whether the acts Of
plaintiff have inflicted damage or injury on
the defendant. If You are satisfied from
the evidence that the defendant has suffered
damages at the hands and by or through
the acts of plaintiff, or the members of his
family, you will find q verdict in favor of
defendant for such damages as you are
satisfied he suffered. And in relation to
this mat ter, the above quoted provisions CT
the law in regard to damages applies.
If you are satisfied from the evidence
that the window shutters of plaintiff hang
or project over the property Of defendant,
plaintiff thereby Is q trepasser on the prop
erry Of defendant and liable for such
damages as such trespass may have occar
stoned.
No one (says article 6e7, Revised Civil
other projections on the border of an estate
so that they extend hey ond the boundary
line which separates it from the adjoining
estates"
Counsel in the course Of ar. ument dwelt
with emphasis on the proposition that at
the time this property WAS purchased by
Keen, the plaintiff, the Objectionable struc-
and that as he knew the fact,
or had known the fact previous to
its purchase, that he can not now complain
and ask To have it removed, and that the
plaintiff having purchased said house placed
himself virtually in position to be ipjure d
thereby, and is guilty of contributory neg
ligence, thereby depriving him from recov-
ering.
1 charge you, gentlemen Of the jury, in
| relation to that matter. If the defendant
had not by prescription-and the prescrIp.
tion of ten years applies in the case of the
kind--if he had not by prescription. or by
the authority Of the owner of the property
now held by Keen acquired right To keep,
construct and maintain the barricade in
question, and if he is not warranted by law
in now keeping the said barricade in its
present sight, the fact that the structure
was on the premises at the time OF the
purchase of the property by the plaintiff
does not now preclude the plaintiff from
an action to compel it's removal.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de-
cisiOr:
State of Louisiana ex rel. Morris Seckel
VS.. the criminal sheriff of Orleans.-Peti.
ton for habeas corpus. RelatOr is confined
in the Parish Prison by an order frem
United States Commissioner Weller, which
is alleged to be illegal in form, and that the
indictment it is founded On is void, not
being signed by the district attorney. The
sheriff produced the body and returned that
the prisoner was held on Indictment under
act Of Congress of March 3, 1873, prohibit
ing the circulation Of obscene literature,
etc. The indictment was found in Connec-
ticut, April %, 1873. The motion by the
district attorney to dismiss for want Of juris
diction was everruled, the United States
marshal being no party to nor author
lied to intervene IN tho proceedings.
The decisions of the Supreme Court have
submerged the authority formerly exer.
cised by the State courts to inquire into tie
power of tho United States government to
restrict persons of their liberty. Ableman
VS.: Booth, q How, SOC; Morris vs.: Newton,
, Mclean, 81; 6pangler's case, III Mich,
2GS; in re Hanson, 40 Barb, 81. The federal
and State governments ars distinct and in
dependent of each other in their respective
spheres of action. Tarble's case, Is WAL.
1877. A State judge has no jurisdiction to
issue writ of habeas corpus to dischargea
person held by the authority of the United
States. Cooley on Limitations, 3i7. An
inquiry is permitted as to the competency
Of the committing magistrate, and if the ar.
rest was made by due process of law. This
involves the authenticity of the indictment.
The caption, Endorsement of true bill and
signature of the foreman are in due form.
1t charges crime. The court can not
inquire into the verify of the charge.
Const. La, So. 1t is essential that an
Indictment should be submitted to the
md l,v ha, ne III
State. That his signature is necessary is
doubted. Ford We. State. 3 Hay. 9s: Hite