New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-03-23

| Soulie, appellant From the Fourth Dis
| trict. Judgment affirmed with increase Of
| damages to 800. Soulie shonid have paid
| the purchase money there being prior
| claim to his.
No. 1853. Chism & Boyd, pallants, vs..
| p. j. Lefebre. -- From Seventh District
| Court of Orleans. On rehearing. Decree
| to remain nndisturbed.
No. $685. Chism g. Boyd vs Freret
Brrthers, appellants From Fourth Dis
trict. Defendants residing in New Orleans;
| the court was i.bnut jurisdiction c. p,
| l62; Rochereau VS.. Guidry, "a A., Gil; Gay
vs Eaton q A. Judgment annn.led.
No. 5569. Ernest Marilh, appellant, vs.. w.
j, Hodgson.-From parish court OF Jeffer-
son. M"tion to dis,n s. appeal Hverruled.
No. 569l. N. Bienvenu VS.. j, l. Laiaurie,
appellant.--Fr Sixth District Court of
Orleans. TIE plaintitf, on the fsce Of the
petition, is not entitled TO the relief sought.
There is nothing ag ainst good conscience to
execute the judgment. IA A, 1896; 3 A., GAG;
T., 523 Judgment affirmed.
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No. 5707. State ex rel. L. f. Chubbnck
vs. Judge Of Superior District Court.-The
relator has an interest in the matter OF
the Loan and Pledge Association. and the
appointment Of q liqui dator. Mandamus
to grant an appeal made peremptory.
No. 5il2 State OF Louisiana vs. Joseph
Giudry. On sentence of ten years for shoot
ing with intent to murder.-From Four
teenth District. The defendant sh 'uld
have been served with q copy Of the iudict-
ment and list of jurors tHo entire DAYS be.
fore the trial. H. s. 79l. Judgment an
nulled and case reuanded.
No. 5524. Richard Francis VS.. Mrs. NJ. l..
Martin ct al, appellant.-From Third Dis
trict. The appeal was within the delay
IN ,,,l A 81. y
R;dry vs.. Howell, 27 A.; C. p, SIS. The
ten days commence to run from the day
the judgment has been notified to tho
party cast. Logan vs. Snow, l r., 60. Mo-
ton to dismiss refused
No 1896. Charlotte B. Surget. appellant.
VS.. Charles p. Euntington.-FrOm Thir-
teenth District. On judgment that plaintiff
was entitled TO $500 and defendant, her
lessee, to $l760 Tor improvements. The
contract does not appear to bs carried out,
and defendants claims inadmissibe. Judg-
ment annulled, AMI both claims dismissed.
No. 4749. State of Louisiana Va. Peter
Marcy, appellant.-From Superior District
Court. Judgment amended and reduced
81 rs. and thus affirmed.
No. $500 p. Mailard vs. John Rhodes,
appellant.-From Sixth District Court of
Orleans On promissory note. Judgment
affirmed.
No 53i2 Stats of Louisiana VS.. Robert
Williams, appellant Fiom Fifteenth Dis
trict. Murder. There was no separation of
the jury; 25 A, 573 It is no ground for a
new trial that the jury did not sign the ver-
Diet when they were polled. Judgment
affirmed.
No. 552s Mrs. Jeanne II. Millaudon vs..
Paul 5 CarningtOu, appeliant.-From Sec
ond District. Judgment affirmed.
NJ. $500. Peter Bore'and vs: Henry
Lickie. appellant aud sheriff of Grant par
ish.-Fro N Ninth District. Judgment ON
execution of confessed Judgment in favor of
defendant. The judgment was an uncon-
ditional one. Judgment reversed.
No. 5617 jesse A. Matthews Vi. p. II.
Kemp and L. B Kemp, appellanJ-From
Sixth District TIE appellant is only bound
as surety on the note. Juds smant reversed
as to him
No 55Si. Opheiia G Burbank, S. N. Bur.
bank, appellant, vs.. William Harris-From
Fourth Judicial Court. Judg nent annulled
and case renamed.
No. 5i59 p. MalIard, appellant, VS.. John
Rbodes.-From Sixth District Court Of
Orleans The seqnestration improperly
issued, as Defendant las no intention of
removing the furniture. Judgment affirmed.
superior District Court.
State VS. Richard Tay inr.-On trial.
Board of Metropolitan Con II ssionerS vs.
city Of New Orleans and Administrator of
FinaEce.-R+lators, represented by Vice
President Leclere and Treasurer Murdock,
allege that the city has collected from tax
payers $4,000, which is now due to the
Metropolitan Police; that J. Ii. Oglcsby was
pired December 81, 1874; that if the board
is deprived Of these funJs 8 1t will be without
means to pay the police. and that they fear
the said Oglesby will endeavor to gain pos
session of these funds. IriuDc lion restrain
ing the Administrator of France from pay
ing and j. II. Oglesby from receiving the
said funds, without bond, the board being
exempt under act No 55 of 1870.
Superior Criminal Court.
George II. BFangh, Esq, presiding in the
absence of Judge Atocba.
State VS.. Joseph w. Fowler ct al-Em.
bezzlement. Tue plea to the jurisdiotion
was Overruled in the following decision.
The position assumed by counsel for the
accused IN this case is an anomalous one.
They con,ended that my selection by the
Hon. A. A. Atocha, Judge Of this court, to
preside over the same curing bis INABILITY
is not warranted by law-that am not a
Judge; and yet they ask me TO entertain and
pass upon their plea, ard to discharge their
clients. II AIN not legal judge, how can
entertain the plea. and by what right
could release the accused from custody
The exception to my appointment could
have been filed at the proper time. so that
the Supreme Court could have passed III, IN
the question direct, but as it has been pre-
sented to NE l will decide it from purely
legal standpoint, uninhuenced by any de
sire b. hold au office which did not Seek, |
and winch l am filling for another. The |
only reward that l anticipate for doing my |
duly is the approval Of the learned ana |
capable gentleman who appointed me and |
the consciousness on my rart of dispensing |
lair and impartia! justice among ali who
come in contact Win the court. The au- |
shoritles cited by the learned counsel |
for the accused are articles eighty |
three and ninety Of the State conslitu- |
ion; section 1907 OF the Revised Statutes.
The Sate Va. tue judge OF the Sixth Judicial |
District. 9 A., 62. and Hays vs. Hays, 10 A.,
H. A supple examination of these author
lies and the act creating this court will |
how that the plea is not well founded.
The oMo cases cited were determined by |
he Supreme Court respectively in 1854 and
800. Inc constitution then in force WAS
hat of 1852. In deciding the first case the
supreme Court declared in substance that
he act to provide for the trial of recuseJ
;ases out OF the CITY Of New Orleans, AID
'ruvtd April 2S, 1888, is uncOusti utiOnaI.
NhyE Because the constitution of 1852
ontained no provision uuGar which such
aw could be enacted. the second cas-. il
merely Affirmative of the other. Counsel
or the accused was in error when he stated
hat 'he provisions OF article ninety of the
constitution OF 1868 were contained in the
pnstitution Of i845 or 1852, ami that there.
ore the decisions cited applied. Article
linfty ot the present Constitution is new
Vas not contained in the constitu ions If |
SD or iS02-and CO sequentiy has NO. been
assed upon by the S1pseme Court. What
) he article! IL reaur: "In any case where
he judge may be recused, and when he is
OF personally interested in the matters in
nntestation, be shalt select lawyer having
be- qualifications reouired for :. ;,dua nt |