New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-03

land TO appropriate the same for Ieyee
purposes" is clearly confined in its meaning
! to the $50 900 which in 1865 had been Dor
| rowed from the levee and drainage fund,
and ordered by the first section OF the act
to be returned to that fund. Il embraces
or implies or indicates no right of the Audi
tor and Treasurer either to borrow or pledge
any bonds, and specially these particular
bonds, as collateral security for the loan
enacted ana authorized in this third section.
In the case also referred to in interyenor's
brief of Municipality VS.. Michinard, An.
p 6Oe, the title under discussion was IAN
act to provide for the payment Of the debts
of the municipalities OF New Orleans" and
it was held. and properly 30, that such title
that the object of the act, though EN- bracing
provisions for levying taxes, licenses, etc.
was sufficiently embraced by the title. The
object stated in the title was Ito provide
for the payment of the debts OF the mu
inequalities" The levying of taxes and
licenses, and using the revenues there
from for the extinguIshment Of the debts
was literally and strictly to provide for
the payment of the debts of the munich
palities, and therefore germane to tie
object set forth in the title. But, as stated
to borrow money and pledge stocks or
bonds as security for the loan is no: GOV.
cred by the objec: expressed IN title. re.
stricted and limited to the returning Of an
amount from the general TO special fund.
See cases Crescent City Gasl.ht ComDan
We. New Orleans Gaslieht Company, q
An, and authorities there cited. Hence
the provisions OF the third section Of the act
No. 81 OF March l, 1867, must be held IN
constitutional, and therefore not warrant
ing the issue Of the bonds held by the inter
venor.
,. As to the question whether ;ntervenc-
being possessor in good faith and valuable
considera ton, should be exempt from the
effects of the illegality of the issue, this
court has heretofore ruled that purchasers
and holders OF such securities take them
not as purchasers and holders before me-
turity Of commercial paper, but subject to
such risk as the illegality of their issue may
give rise to, and see nothing in the law,
facts and circumstances of this case TO
constitute it an exception TO this rule. It
might. however, become serious question
FOR the consideration Of the court il these
bonds were to be considered in the light of
strictly commercial paper issued by the
State, whether they would not tai! within
the prohibitions of section ten of article
one of the constitution of the United
States. declaring tina: no State shall emit
bills of credit.
The view have taken of the intervenor's
claim, renders it unnecessary to consider the
question raised on behalf Of the State, that
these bonds after being Issued and pledged
were redeemed by the State Treasurer, and
under act No. ZIG OF 1867, ordered TO be
cancelled, and las contended) in the eye Of
the law were Cancelled, and could not le-
eally be re-issued. The inquiry is unneces-
sary. because the second issue of these
bonds usder the provisions Of the third sec
ton of the act of March !. 1867, are IT,
valid, even though they have not been
struck with nul!ity by :he;s previous re-
demption.
MaudaEnus refused.
First District Court.
CONVICTED.
State rs. John Thompson.-Dispiacing a
switch with intent to injure ar engine and
cars Of MorgaI's railroad. Verdict. guilty
generally.
INFoRMArIoNs.
Keeping private markets-B. Pomper,
William DIETRICH. NJ. ROGUE. +. Com
menge, +. Lamarque. 8. Bones, John Bar
res, Belsin Martin. E. . Antique NJ. Gu-
ja!ue.
Second District Court.
Succession of Bedeiis Beals. wife Of Ed
ward Beals, opened.
fourth District Court.
James Wood ys. Columbus II. Allen
Libel. Petition alleges defendant, in filing
written plea of guilty of assault and bat
terry, in the First District Court, malciOusly
libeled plaintiff and caused its publication
in the Times and Bulletin, for which he
prays damages of $4,000.