New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-02-19
>
COURT RBCORUs
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY Is, 1875.
Supreme Court.


when the city docket will be called.
Superior District Court.
Teutohia Insurance Company vs.. Thomas
OCOnnOr, chief engineer ct ais.
On the rule taken to dissolve the injunc-
ton.
Judge Hawkins eaid:
This case is not to be considered in its
full extent by the court in passing on the
question as now presented. The planti1,
the insurance company, seeks to restrain
the chief manager Of the fire department
from executing an ordinance which was
passed by the Firemen's Charitable Ass0-
citation against the persons who are en-
gagged for the insurance company IN
extingushiny fires, where that COM
pany has taken risks against the des-
truction of property BY fire. 1t appears
that this company employed this agency for
the purpose OF arresting fires which broke
out on property insured by the company.
The complaint is against the defendant for
preventing this agency so employed from
extinguishing fires occurring on such prop
erty. The complaint is that the fire assO
citation has nothing to do with this question.
1t is claimed in argument that it had a right
to enact this statute and proceed in this
manner by virtue of the police power vested
in it by the State and city. The court has
nothing to do with the determination Of the
magnitude of the police power. 1t is a
power that never has and never can be de-
lined. No court can undertake to give
police power. 1t must always spring from
necessity. The police power could not be
permanently delegated to anybody. 1t is
the sovereign will to enact and revoke it.
Armies and navies are organized under the
police power; the regulations of the militia
are police regulations: and the system OF
international law 10 founded upon police
power. The judicial department has never
undertaken to define it. In order to ena-
bic the Firemens Charitable Associa-
ton of the city Of New Orleans to arrest,
under police power, and have absolute con-
troll over the suppression Of fires, a guaran-
tee would have to be given for the protec
ton of property under this power. II the
power is not exercised to protect, it can
not be for the purpose of destroying it. 1t
would be for society to undertake to
destroy itself, and it can not enact its own
destruction. But it has the power, the
un4uesti0nable power, to employ such
agents as may be necessary from time to
time to protect property from fire. The
exercise Of that power is exclusive or not,
as the sovereign assumes the consequence
of it's exercise or nOn-exerclse where the
delegation is made to an agency. Now, it
there were vested in the association: or 1t
had the power to vest in its own officers,
absolute control Of the preservation OF
property and power 70 prohibit all other
agents from interfering with the property,
then it would follow that the State. in that
case, would be responsible when its agent
had, as authorized, exercised that power.
The plaintiff, as an insurer, has right to
protect the property insured. tor he has
an interest in it's preservation. He has the
right to use agents for this purpose and to
protect them from the agents the public
h2u v>rnvidp6 haRanaQ nrnnArtV alien.
ated in the nature of insurance if the prop
erty is destroyed by fire. In the protection
of this interest there is the right to use
agents, who are. like any other person who |
creates disorder, amenable to penal laws. |
The penal law complained of in this case is
void for many reasOns-principally because |
of want of authority to enact it-and it is |
the duty Of the court to prevent it's enforce
ment What interest has the Firemen's |
Charitable Association in the merits of the |
Babcock machines. 1t is not alleged or
shown that they are even responsible for the |
destruction of property by fire; which the |
association has been employed by the public |
to protect as far az possible. The presence |
of these machines is said To produce discord |
among the tiremen, but am unable to see |
how. can not imagine any reason for pre- |
venting persons vino have an interest IN
from exercising their right to sup
press fire, and see no reason to dissolve the |
Injunction.
State Of Louisiana We. Antoine Dubuclet |
and James Lungstreet.-TheA Attorney Cen |
eral relates: That on August %, 1874. upon |
the application of the State ex rel. James |
Longstreet va. Charles Clinton. Auditor, a |
mandamus was issued to compel the Au- |
ditor to to issue $50, 800 in State warrants to |
certain claims against the Louis |
lana State militia; that the warrants were |
issued to James Longstreet. who has drawn
the money from the State Treasurer to the |
amount OF $32 100, and failed to account |
for. the same. as directed by the mandamus;
that the balance, $2S, 200, is still unpaid;
that the warrants were drawn under act |
No. So Of 1874; that the appropriation tor
militia expenses for 1873 and 1874 is a nullity,
being in violation Of the constitution, ar
ticle lO4, and the warrants void; that the
payment Of the outstanding warrants will
work an irreparable injury to the State
Prays for an injunction on the Treasurer
and citation of James Longstreet, and after
lce proceedings, be condemned to return
The SOS, 200 in warrants, and be condemned
10 pay to the State treasury the 49,, 100 by
1im unaccOunted for.
Injunction issued without bond.
First District Court.
INFoRMArFoNs FILED.
Assault and battery-Emma Hall, Lizzie,
emma Williams, William jackson.
Larceny-Dan Sullivan, James Sommers,
Michel Roman, K. K. Thomas, Sam Alder
On.
NOLLE PROsEQUI ENTERED.
Larceny George Walker, William j.
CONVICTED.
Larceny-Edward Brown, Robert Burton
Assault and battery-Robert Burton.
Second District Court.
Succession of Marie Anne Marcot, wife of |
Francois Carrere, opened.
Eu'al!e Pauline Fazende prays to be
The Weather and Rivers.