New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-03-14
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, MARCH H.. 1875.
Superior l)iserlct Court.

Superior District Court.
A. C. Lewis vs. City of New Orleans
Petitioner alleges that there is due him fo
salary as Assistant City Attorney, at $25t
per month, $3.50 30; that he has disposed
of three months salary, and that balance
is due him of $3.50 30, for which he pray
judgment.
Ernest T. Marchsnd vs.. Charles Gin
ton.-Application for mandamus alleging
services in printing official documents Al
the request of State officials during 1873
for which the Legislature made appropria
ton by act No. lis of 1874, of $1,000, which
the Auditor refuses to pay.
| Mrs. Ellen Murray vs.. Pontchartrain
Railroad-Suit for damages Of $4,000 fol-
death of plaintiffs husband and injury to
| herself by carelessness of defendants en-
ployes in running train into their horse
and wagon. Verdict Of $40, 500 for plaintiff
First District Court.
State va. Caroline Johnson.-Information
for petty larceny.
Third District Court.
Judge Meunier rendered the following
decisiOn:
State of Louisiana, ex relatiOne of Louisa
Bernard, wife of Joseph Miller, Jr., va. Mrs.
Elizabeth Alexander. for a
writ of habeas corpus. The relatOr, Mrs.
Louisa Bernard, alleges that she is the law.
full wife of one Joseph Miller, Jr., of New
Orleans, and that there are several children,
the issue of her marriage with said Miller;
one Of whom, viz: Louisa, aged about eight
years, has been unlawfully taken from the
relatOr and is detained by one Elizabeth
Alexander, also of New Orleans, who de-.
prives said relator of access to her afore-
named child at all times. The relator fur
ther alleges that she is kind and devoted
mother to said child, and is, under any and
all circumstances, amply able to maintain
and educate her, and that she is really the
parent to whom the custody of said child
should be awarded. And the relat0r prays
to be authorized to institute and prosecute
these proceedings; that writ OF habeas
corpus issue to said Elizabeth Alexander,
commanding this latter to produce before
the bar of this court the body of the infant
Louisa Miller, and that after due proceed
ings had, said writ be make peremptOry,
and that the relator be decreed entitled to
the custody Of said infant.
In answer to the habeas corpus served
upon her, Mrs. Elizabeth Alexander AYERS
under oath that the child, Louisa, and her
father, Joseph Miller, Jr., are boarders in
her house, No ITO jackson street, and that
in obedience to the order of this court, and
at the request of said Joseph Miller, she
produces in court the said child Louisa.
Joseph Miller, Jr, the husband of the re-
later and father of the child, Louisa, inter.
veDing in these proceedings, urges, by way
of exceptions, that the reiatOr herein has
no right to the writ of habeas corpus and
no standing in court for this, because the
domich Of the respondent is at Mrs. Alex
ander's, No. ITO jackson street, in New Or
leans, and that his domicil is in law the
domicil OF the relstor, his wife; and because
the respondent has the possession and GUS
tOdy OF his child, Louisa, and is by law
entitled to said possession and custody.
Respondent further AYERS that there is no
suit for a separation from bed and board,
nor is there any for divorce between the
court has no authority, under this form of
proceeding, to take his child from
his custody and control; custody and
control which the law gives to the
legitimate father. No evidence but the ties
timony of the relator herself and that of
Joseph Miller, her husband, has been offered
on the trial of this case. From that evidence
it simply appears that some eighteen months
ago the relator and her husband, said
as husband aud wife because of the inc0m.
patibility of their tempers. voluntarily sepa-
rated, the latter, Joseph Miller, taking
away with him the child Louisa and the
relator keeping under her control a little
boy, the issue also of her marriage with the
respondent. After their voluntary separa
ton Joseph Miller put the child Louisa in a
convent, where she remained for one year.
1t also appears from the testimony on file
that Joseph Miller is sufficiently able to
support, maintain and educate his child,
with whom he ia now living at Mrs. Alex
ander's, No. Ito jackson street. where he
has for some time established his residence
Nothing is said in the REALTORS petition, nor
in her testimony. tending to assail the char
acter of the respondent OF his conduct to.
ward his child, nor is there any allegation
in her petition or in her testimony tending
to impugn the character or the honesty Of
Miller resides with his child. The relatOr
complains only, both in her petition and In
her testimony, that her husband has aban-
doned her and deprived her Of any access
to her child, Louisa, without any cause or
reason whatever.
The human laws and the laws Of nature
both disapprove and condemn the conduct
of husband, who, without any justifiable
cause, denies to virtuOus and devoted
mother the right which she undoubtedly
has to express her natural affection to her
child; yet, however wrong, however cul.
pable the conduct of Joseph Miller. one of
the respondents herein, toward his wife may
be, l do not think that said relator, fl Om the
allegation OF her petition, is entitled under
q proceeding for habeas corpus, to the
relief prayed for by her, and that this court
may interfere and take from said Joseph
Miller the paternal power which the law
gives to the legitimate father. "a child
remains under the authority of his father
and mother, until his majority or his eman-
cipation; and in case Of differences between
the parents, the authority Of the father
prevails" r. C. C. art. 2l6. Both under
the civil aud common law, minor children,
while both parents are living, are subjected
to the authority Of the father,
who is bound to provide for them and to
protect them in their persons and in their
rights. l., p. 365; 7 A. K p. 500.
1t is therefore ordered and decreed that
the rule herein filed be Discharged; the
relator paying costs of these proceedings.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following
decision:
j. Martin & Sons va. Given, Watts &
Co The plaintiffs allege that the defend.
ants owe them $lO45 95. with legal inter- |
est thereon from November Is, 1867. They |
aver that said defendants were their agents, |
and as such received sums of money at diff
ferent times amounting in all to about |
f3S, 900, to pay duty Oh freight, expenses,
ETC., on consignments of ties and machinery |
belonging to petitioners firm; that the sum |
claimed remained in defendants hands, |
and that they refuse to account for and |
paw it. The answer is first general de. |
NAL, and discharge in bankruptcy on the !
part OF H. II. Bryan, dated March 9, 1869; |
D. A. & II. F. Given, answering, adopt ali |
the allegations of their co-defendant Bryan, |
and all pray to be hence dismissed, with |
costs. Much evidence was taken, which |
think amounts to veritication of plaintiffs !
allegations, and proof Of the I'M
paid balance as claimed. As to the dis |
charge in bankruptcy, am unable to sus-
.ain the plea. Tne defendants were clearly |