New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-09-01
COURT RECORD.
TUESDAY. AUGUST 81, 1875.
superior District Court.

SUuEAs
State ex rel. b. Bloomfield vs Charles
Clinton, State Auditor. to com
pei a warrant for money appropriated for
stationery furnished the Legislature. Re-
fused on the ground that there is no money
in the treasury for the appropriation.
State vs.. sundry Taxpayers. Frank NJ.
Butler, Esq, appointed curator ad hoe to
represent absent and deceased defendants
to suits for drainage tax.
James Wood VS.. b. +. Joubert. tax col
lector, Second Dstrict.-Injunction, on
bond of $500, to restrain the sale of two lots.
Attorney General Dibble consentihg on the
representation that payment had been
made
First District Court.
ISEoRMATIoNS.
Petty larceny-Sam Moore Bill Hay
wood
PLEADED GUILTY.
Ramos James, of petty larceny.
CONVICTED.
Elsey Howard, of petty larceny.
Joseph Morris, of entering a shop, etc,
one year.
second District Court.
Successions of Jacob Kohning, Andre
Ciaudiu, Michael Guy on, Pascalis Roubin,
and Mrs. Ellen McEnery, wife of Patrick
Monahau, opened.
John Steele prays to be emancipated.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom decided the following rules:
A. Gregory VS.. Alexander Walker
Plaintiff is defendants lessor who was ab-
sent when the rent was due, July 3. July
5 plaintiff sued, and July the sheriff took
possession. The proof is that the defendant
had no intention to remove the furniture,
but ncne that tender was made OF the
amount due. Salter VS.. Duggan is contrary
to other decisions OF the Supreme Court
aud stands alone. Wallace vs. Smith. SAN.
374; Lalaurie vs. Woods, 8 A. 366. Failure
to pay constitutes good reason to fear re.
moval of the property. harsh rule may
work injustice, and this case seems one of
them. Yet l am obliged to leave the mover
in the established path-recognizing the
fact that as to this court, ria aHhgtas, ria
tuta, where the reasons are not cogent for
stepping aside from it. Motion to set aside
the seizure overruled.
James Ignaga De Vale VS.. w. 1.
Hodgson. The defendant in this
cause was tried for an alleged contempt of
the authority of this court before Hon.
Judge ,Tissot, acting, ETC., and was dis
charged The plaintiff now applies for
new trial, and the defendant excepts to his
right thereto on several grounds. have
carefully considered the case. and am con-
vinced that the remedy of a new trial does
not lie. New trials are granted by express
provisions of law where a party. feeling
himself aggrieved by the judgment or YER
dict, applies within three judicial days
after the same has been rendered--sections
1884 and 1885 of the Revised Statutes, page
397-provided that the district courts there
in enumerated shall be opened on all legal
days, ETC., and from the fourth of July to
the first Monday of November, for granting
''Interlocpt0ry orders, and writs of arrest,
hsbeas corpus, injunctions, representations,
attachments, mAndamus and provisional
seizures, or motion to quash and not upon
their merits, etc., also for the purpose OF
for the possession of leased property" 1t
appears from this section that ii the courts
may hear motions for contempt in vacation,
the authority therefor must be found under
or in the words ''interlocutory orders" As
every day, except the statutory holidays, is
for this purpose judicial day, it is clear
the application for o rehearing was not
made in time. Again: If the doctrine estab-
lished by the Supreme Court be the correct
one, the plaintiff has no manner of IN
teIest in the judgment itself, as it is a
matter concerning the State and the de-
fendant alone. Such was the view taken
by that learned tribunal in the Van Norden
grant pardon in case of contempt was
recognized aud established. Until that de-
cision it was thought by some of the writer's,
and certainly was opined by the courts that
a willful disregard of judicial orders was q
contempt of the court itself. To preserve
it's authority and to vindicate it's inherent
power appropriate provisions of positive
law were incorporated in the Code of Prac-
| tice, ARTICLE 100 ct seq. 1t doth now appear
that there is no such thing in reality as con
tempt Of court, but only contempt of the
State through the authority of the courts.
| be different as to any right for . new trial
in such casee, because, "a my Judgment, the
articles 557 ct seq. OF the Code Of Practice
do not contemplate such cases. The sen.
tence of court, once pronounced in them,
10 final. 1t 10 useless to examine other
] points presented, Motion oyerruled.