New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-12-14

.uiieuc,ion. ~ 10 not denied that the Superior
orlmnal Couit had jurisd lotion of the case or
even that Judge Braughn was the Judge of tn at
court when the Indictment was returned into
couit and when he sentenced the convict The
writ OF habeas corpus was never designed to be
writ OF error. by which the errors or Irregular
tiles of final Judgment could be reyis, d.
1t Is therefore ordt red that the application of
me petitioner he refused, and that he be remanded
No. 5525. State vs. Henry Washington Murder.
From Twelfth Judicial District. Appeal from sen.
tence Tor life The bill Of exceptions only contains
Iues'ions OF iact which this court can not deter.
- No 5is5 state vs.. Jules Pons alias &. Mairaire-
Forgery From Superior District Court. Appeal
1000 the law required the ndict ment to cont ain an
exact cory of the forged instrument. 8 R. 542
ment afli rmed e
No; Si96. State Vs. Jules Paris and E. Robertson.
No. 5000. State vs.. Gus Anderson-Rape. From
superior Nr re- Criminal Court Appeal from sentence
Nc. $3.50. Sta 9, ex rel. P Goursotte va. Sheriff
Wagganlau ct al.-On rule for cOntem ,t for not
second writ of sequestraton. The answers of de.
PENDANTS are mere subteifuges. Fine of S so each
imposed on 81 eriff q Jean Porte.
No 5l93. City OF New Ore We John William
cannon, ape ant. From SUIT etor District Court.
lax suit. The judPmen was improperly ,endeIe ed
az inst appellant, who was not patty to the SUIT,
No 1857 j. A Fernando VS.. Bernard Soulie, ap.
pc lahi.-from seventh District Conrt On agree
alleging failure to give title and d. images OF
Sio262: The court below gave $40 8l8 10. The
palnth knew the capacity of defendant 10 give
title, and the agreement was to procure one. The
contract s not complete till the deed is signed bv
10th parties s1T p 8 w. s4a S2S SM 81 $, 42a:
plaintif continued to be tenant. Judgment for
plar tn 10, u 500 subject TO credit of S67i3 81.
pellant-From Fifth district Court The plaintiff
he anf y o9a ah and nq Rdh g.
A., s7i; II A., 1872 Judgment aiiitmed, with $50
No, 1902. T. Lafon vs. William B. Hyman, A. Ca.
ment annulled and Judgment for defeI dsnt 'N'
MIRA Es From
~. 81: Mary T. ssyes v i W. af sSn ep
twenty.sx bales cr cotton shipped TO defendants
on account. TAe firm of Boyce Ward owed mere
No. ss7s H.poiite Paan Ts S sarah Ann coov
| appellant. From Fifth District Court. The de
fendaut is not in possession of any part of the
| No 5i13 Succession of Mr.. Virginia H. Hall
Prom Second District Court. The will is valid. II
proved Laws lis, ia7i 1872, p. is; % Ills a. q
R., 427i r., 43i; A. 48; Is A.. S. 4 foreign viii
may be prov d in LOuisia a, though thu formal
| ties of the Civil Code not observed The cases
Rob, ~ Il L., H. See A., $40; G. u, 1883. Judg
| No. 5Is3 Edward J. Cav vs. Ration 4 Barstow ap
| pellants.-From Fourth District Court. 1t was the
| intention of the pal that the money should re
main on deposit I'LL the controversy should be d.
| termned. The sequestration having been dis
soiyed il must he returned Judgment affirmed.
| No. 1864. Succession of Luca Giacon-From Sec
| ond District Court The pablo administrator
| obeyed the order of court in rendering the &C
| count Judgment affirmed
BY JUSTICE TALIAFRRRo.
| No. 1925. State w. Alexander Newton Murder
| From The Superior Criminal Court. Appeal from
sentence of death An assistant clerk Of tbs Sec
| ond Mu icpal Court was properly excused as a
Juror No summons for talesuen was necessary.
| Blank orders, signed by the clerk with the seal
| in which the sheriff inserted the Nance gave ne
validity to his act did it detract from it. The
| Judge said IN his charge all the defendant ask
regarding the law aud the fact. The charges on
malice. and that drunkenness is an aggravatiou
and not an excuse, were sufficient. Judgment at
| hrmed.
| No. 1892 State VS.. Mary Estee.-Murder. From
the sarerior Criminal Court It. Indicted February
labor for hfs, April q, 1875. The exception that
H. net r. R to sit
TO- State VS.. Pete Phillips. Judgment reversed and
case remanded.
No. 5i87. State vs.. Jack Owens. = Burg ~
From Superior Criminal Court. Appeal from sen
| quent to a discharge on motion of arrest of iudg
| ment. The plea OF autre fois acquit not avail
| The oil nses are entirely different. The ndct
| ment was defective, and does not prevent ose
| cutiOn for the same or a lesser offense. Wharf
Or L. 1885, Ar'h Prae., SOL Judgment affirmed,
/ a.
| appel ANTS. From Fourth District Court. on con
| tr ct by cable between plant II and bruce. Simp
son Co., of Liverpool Tor 500 bs es of cotton a,
| II I'D on magin OF $1,000. Defendants became
| interested with plant II at oue.quarter each
There was no privity between them aud Bruce
| Stofy's Agency, $50; Rob, las; A, 8 The evi
| dence does not sustain partnership. Each con
tracted for himself only. Judgment affirmed ex
cept IN reducing the rate of interest FIR ON eight to
| live Ter cent.
| No. 5sl7 Charles F. Barens VS.. Robert j. Ker
| .1at.t txs1 ~
| secured by mortgage 1t was iEoompetent for the
| defendant t. set up a calm for professional ser
| vic. 5: c. c., 2l09. Judgment affirmed.
| No. 49, Francois Giuther, appellant, We. New
| Orleans jackson and Great Northern railroad
| From shth District Court. On rehearing For
| mer Judgment affirmed, Chief Justice Ludeline
| and Justice Morgan adhering to their former
| No. +47I Succession of NJ R. Haggerty- From
order the aale of succession property and enforce
| compliance with bid made by purchasers; K
| affirmed
No. 587a J. H. Harvey. ct TX vs.. steamboat Bos
sier, appellant.-FrOm Fifth District Court. SEE
| No. $751; apps al dismissed
| BY JUSTICE HOWELL,
No 5000 State rel. George G. No;cross -. the
| Judge of the Four h District Court parish of Or.
| leaus.-This is an application for a mandamus to
compel the Judge of the Fourth District Court fol
| the parish Of Orleans to issue an order to the
sheriff to put relator In possession of certain real
| estate which, he alleges he purchased at a tax
provisions of act No a. Il 1873 entitled IAN act Ia
enforce the payment OF taxes due the State pro,
viding Tor the seizure and sale of the property Of
| delinquent ia Npayers, and regulating the proceed
| ings against them and tn proper and ten.
8nLs.'
The relator presented to the said Judge pei i.
ton for such order prescribed by the last clause
OF the fourth section OF said act which is in the
following words: Upon the prest ntation of a
title given Chat is title by the tax collector,
to the district court, it shall be the duty of the
Judge to order the sheriff to put such person in
The Judge refused the der for tt reasons:
l. The Fourth District Court is without juIisdic.
ton.
, He questioned if there Is any law which will
warrant this summary proceeding
In answer to the provisional writ OF m andamus,
he contends that the subject matter, il constitu.
ton a. is confined to the jurisd elton of the Supe
rior District Court for the parish of Orleans by
court, and that the act under which the said order
was asked IS unconstitutional in several respects
and especially in deprving an owner of his prop
the act crtatin. the Superior District Court which
confines the proceeding to the said court and
Orleans is district court in contemp At on of the
act No. AZ invoke by reatOr, being district court
of general civil jursdiction. 1t is unnecessary TO
raise or discuss the constitutional question as the
act does not declare in express terms that the
der TO the sheriff to put q purchaser in possession
shall issue without notice, aud may well con.
strue 1t as adopted with reference to the general
laws relating to summary proceedings in the courts
of the State and as authorizing the district courts,
to which application is to be made, to require the
necessary legal notice to be issued to the party
be ousted, and to dispose OF the COMES in a sum.
mary manner. We think however, that the Judge
in ms instance, did not in refusing to issue the
order at prayed for because no party was made to
the proceeding upon whom notice could be served.
Consequently, there is no proper showing for the
fIt OF mandamus to issue from this court When
the judge refuses TO issue the order upon preseuta
ton to him OF petition in proper fom, IL will be
time to ask for IA mandanus. 1t is therefore
dered that the writ of mandamus herein be dis.
charged with costs.
Justice Morgan dissenting. says think the
law Az 1t the duty of the district Judge to pass