New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-09-05
The Writs of Contempt.

eh e8dnlnatlon OF tne factS and the law
of the eases of writs of habeas corpus
which Judge Abell allowed in the cases Of
trilot and Larrleux leads to the conclusion
that he has exceeded his jurisdiction. These
parties are butchers, whose business con
sists in slaughtering cattle they buy and
selling to smaller dealers or consumers
The State passed law, known as the
sfaughterhouss act, directing that com
pany should do all slaughtering at q certain
place, and that others should slaughter On
their premises. Attorney General Belden
took the ground that this company was the
agent of the State, a7d By all the processes
OF the State courts endeavored to sustain
the acts Of the Legislature and the location
taken by the company on the west bank of
the Mississippi. The Supreme Court of the
Unit ID States sustained this view.
Since the decision, the company have re.
moved to the east hark To State has
made no objection through its .egal officers.
More than a dozen butchers Ia been sued
by the company for the penalties Of viola
tion OF the statute, and the State itseli pur-
HNSA Nhtih ehAouesi viz IJlslTlCL
Court, for slaughteriug cattle in violation
Of law. The pre- sent writs arise from these
State suits.
Judge IIawkina, on the hearing, rerpet
| uated the Injunction previously Issued nro-
hibitipg the butchers from slaughtering,
and. on motion refused ali appeal. The
| Supreme Court, then sitting in ITcnroe,
granted a mandsmus for an appeal, and is.
! sued writ of pro hibition against ful taer
proceedings. The question then stood on
| two different points, Watcher the butchers
could slaughter at all, or whether they
| could, as allowed in one OF the wrts.
| slaughter a certain number Of cattle. Sew
| eral continued as usual, the two named
| being prominent One was arrested Oh
motion OF the State, fined and imprisoned
for contempt Of the authority Of the Supe.
rior District Coz urt, and, on an application,
before Judge Morgan, for writ CT habeas
corpus, was sent back TO prison, bacan &c
| his otfepse was committed in the interim
| between the issuance of the writs from the
| two courts. Another was released by the
same Justice because the Attorney General
admitted the commitment was not based on
a violation of the writ from the Supreme
Court. Subsequently, Judge Hawkins com
mitted both the parties named for viola
ton of the writ of the Supreme Court.
They did not apply again to Justice MGR
| gan, but selected district Judge Of tech
nieal equal jurisdiction with Judge Haw-
kins Du ring the. trial Judge Abel brought
this fact to bear with great force against the
attorneys for the REALTORS. Judge Walker,
for the relators, answered it was the pur.
pose to remove that objection, and closed
his argument with an exhaustive review Of
| the jurisdiction of all the courts.
But Judge Abell in his decision, pays lit
tie attention to this. He expressly says;
The court is invested with jurisdiction by
| statute in matter of Injunction, besides this
court is bound judicially to know the juris-
| dlction conferred on the courts Of the Stats.
| The committal of these relators was clearly
| within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred
on the Superior District Court.
The Judge continues by referring to the
slaugterhouse litigation, and to the argu-
ment that the appeal divested the Superior
District Court Of jurisdiction, But he also
says
If the Judge of the Superior District Court
has abused his jurisdiction, or misconceived
| his duty. 1t is not the province of this court
to revise it; redress against any irregularity
| or excess must be revised and corrected by
| the Supreme Court.
This should seem concluaiYe, hut Judge
Abell proceeds to review the commitment,
| saying if it we're general in terms it must
remain undisturbed, and if special tue
| Judge may mine if the cause be sufficient.
| On the commitment he discharged the pris-
| oners, because they were committed for
violating an injunction not punishable by q
| fine. In this he adopted portion Of the
theory of Judge Walker, who argued that
the penalty inflicted by the slaushtcrhouse
act prevented any contempt.
These facts lead 90 different conclusion
than that of Judge Abel. The commit
| ment for contempt was portion OF the pro-
ceedings before Judge Hawkins. Il ia a
part of the record, and expressly states is in
intended accordance with the mandate OF
the Supreme Court. Judge Abel Is par tic-
| ular in admitting the jurisdiction, and his
lack of authority to interfere on that ground.
| 1t would be absurd to infer so close stu
dent as Judge Abell has not read act No. 86
of 1870 which says in section frat:
That whenever a suit or judicial pro-
ceeding is instituted in any of the courts of
the parish of Orleans, in this State, where
such court has jurisdiction, all parties to
such suit shall be confined exclusively to
such court for the trial of all issues and
matters that may arise in the course of such
litigation, or out of the judgment rendered
in such litigation; and no other judge shall
have jurisdiction to grant orders of ipjunc-
tion, sequestration, provisional seizure, ar
rest, prohibition, quo warranto, Or any
other order by which the proceedings in
such litigation or judgment rendered
therein, or the property in litigation, or
persons of the parties in the litigation, shall
be stayed or in any manner interfered with
or interrupted.
This seems to be, in connection with the
sound views expressed by Judge Abel on
the question of jurisdiction, sufficiently con-
clusive. The orders of the Superior Dis
triet Court will be found in the court
record. Judge Walker notified the sheriff
to obey them at his peril. The order of
court is more explicit. 1t tells him disobe-
dience is suspension from Office.
The second section of the statute already
quoted from says that the judge to whom