The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-03-25
THE BATTURE CASE.
A Question of Ownership.
Answer to the Application for an
Injunction against Mrs. Gaines.


VI the City Of New Orleans, in which the bat
, ture in front of the suburb St Mary il
II claimed as public domain of the State, anG
}. also praying for writ OF Injunction to re-
= strain Mrs. Gaines from prosecuting her ex-
I ecution against this batture property. and
M that the sale be enjoined.
; The case came up yesterday in the United
States Circuit Court, Judge Woods presiding.
The case was opened by Judge John A.
Campbell on behalf Of the State. Mr. B. F.
Jonas appearing for the city and Mr.. J. Q. 4
Fellows for Mrs. Gaines Mr.. Fellows also
defended the right OF the city to said batture,
and filed the following answer with exhibits
and affidavit:
nifed states Circuit COurt-No. 1867.
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs.. MYRA CLARK GAINES AND
THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
And now comes J. G. A. Fellows for him
self, as interested and owner of the Judgment
IN the suit of Myra Clark Gaines VS.. the CITY
of New Orleans, No. 1905 of the docket of
this Court, for 1925, 1856 70 and interest, less
certain portions thereof transferred by him
and by his consent to various parties, and for
Samuel NJ Todd and Adolph Schneider, hold |
ing SAID Judgment as trustees for the various |
parties IN interest, ell intervening herein.
and for the defendant Myra Clark Gaines, as
guarantor of the various transfers and as de-
fendant herein, and for ell other parties in in
terest herein, as intervening and defendants.
except the City of New Orleans, for the pur
pose OF this appearance and the objects of the
same only, and for answer to the notice to
show cause why an injunction and restraining
order should not issue herein against the sale
by the Marshal under plluies feri tacias of
certain property named and described in the
bill herein filed, says
|. That the State has shown no legal. or ,
equitable ground authorizing the issuance Of !,
the writ OF Injunction or restraining order
prayed Tor and has made no showing of right c
OF property In the property offered for sale by
the marshal as aforesaid. That neither the
State nor the public have any right therein.
2 That no affidavit has been made to the S
truth OF the allegations of the bill; the same v
is not sworn to by any one
3. The marshal does not advertise for sale !,
any portion Of the bank of the river devoted L
to the use Of the public for the purposes of o
com merce, but only the right and interest of
the city OF New Orleans in the future accre- q
non as the same became unnecessary for the
uses OF commerce and the public >
4. That the act of 1920, called in the hill Il
IN act OF compromise between Edward Liy- D
n9ston and others, was not compromise of "
any OF the rights of batture, but an arrange
nent between the city of New Orleans and II
he front propretOrs in the fauburg ST. 10
Mary formerly called the .'villa Gravier" NJ
or the laying off in front of their property \,
wo tiers Of squares. divided by streets, and a.
ne building OF new levee to protect the city IL
rom overflow in front of where New Iavae m
trect was made, and in place of the leyee y,
bout TO be levelied then on Tchoupitoulas -,
treet as will appear by copy Of said act IL
iereto annexed and marked exhibit /. pr
D. That the title of said property is in the
ity OF New Orleans by reason OF a compro-
Use with and conveyance to it by the several
-ont proprietors, made by notarial act before
|. b: Cenas, on Both June, 1851, copy of tn
Inch IS hereto annexed as exhibit 2. and .,
hlch title has never been Invested, SO far as be
ne property in question is concerned De
&. That by act of the Legislature, the State su
tempted to cede the rights of batture here be
! to the New Orleans, Mobile and Texas Rail- sec
'ad Company, and the question of title as to Nj
le batture IN question is res adjudicatd, by oW
eclsion Of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in
suits now final between the CITY OF New see
rleans and the said transferee of the State of
ouisana, the New Orleans, Mobile and Tex
Railroad Company. That this present suit &c
an attempt on the part Of said company, reE
cretly made to have set aside and annnlled sor
Louisiana in favor of the city of New Or in
ans aud against the said New Orleans. Mo- Th
le and Texas Railroad Company, as per use
dgment IN said case in Goth Annual, page Chi
~, made part hereof. usu
Z. That contrary to equity and good con- pla
fence, the city OF New Orleans, through its anG
icers, has colluded with the State of Louis sha
IA, through Its officers to brine this suit mo
en- to the risk to the CITY of its entire bat by
a N nd To 1af A., ora
igment IN Gaines vs. the city of Neg Or
ms aforesaid, as will appear by the affidavit )
reto annexed as exhibit 3: WI
Exhibit 3-Anidavit. cha
Personally appeared J. @ A. Fellows, who o o,ol
ing duly sworn, deposes and says that he is /, ~
'dloly informed. and believes the same to ooli
true, that the City Attorney, acting by the Voc
OF the other authorities Of the avn
y OF New Orleans or on his own motion or baf
th, did apply to VIM. Pitt Kellogg, the s enc
~ i1ouIsit'I iof IN suit
neral of the STATE to bring suit and that 'ot IT.
d CITY Attorney, Is. +. Jonas, Esq, did call =,
on the Governor of the State aforesaid ,ro
"a said intent on or about Sunday, March tbos
1870, and did receive from him, the said n
vernon, letter of instructions or request az
A. T. Field, the Attorney General T po
he State Of Louisiana, and did with that ~
er call upon the said Attorney-Genera Il on ~,
about the same day and with the purpose amo
his injunction in view and that then and go,
re on consultation and after comforting to- NJ
Der. bill was drawn up and the same was CON,
~ III, - - -. ~, a.'orne9 uenerai' ana Hou
IT;.al 90, vi 'ne uochet OF one,
her swears thai he believes said suit No. antb
:, was procured and asSented to by the of u
OF New Orleans and the State of Louisiana. y; -
especially is the result of combination A.
veen the said b. f. Jones, William 2. co,d
logg and 4. z. Field, and mainly with TN
intent and purpose to delay and prevent man
execution OF the Judgment as set forth in IT, =,
49,. a,,,;t1 ~ y ~ aock.t OF face
of NV Orleans.
nd att ant further says, that be is informed
verify believes that the suit. named in ~, =,
bill In suit No 1lG1 atnresaid s.id d 90 y