The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-01-31
SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT.
Petition.

president, Charles Engsfeld, represents tia
in accordance with its charter, said compan
has been for some time and is now engage
IN the business Of insuripg houses, furnitur
and other property in the city of New O,
leans from loss or damage by fire, and ha
taken and now has many risks of that kind
for the past four years pc itioner has been il
the habit Of using, by its officers agents ant
| employees, at its own expense, certain small
machines known as Babcocks fire extinguish
er, each one Of which can be used by one man
and is carried about on the back of on,
man, and several of which are carried in {
cart or wagon, for the purpose Of extinguish
ing fires originating in or threatening the
destruction or damage Of property insured by
petitioner, said machines being patented un
der the laws of the United States and the
use of these machines has been very effective
in saving great losses to petitioner, and until
| a very recent period they have been used BY
petitioner without any opposition or objec.
ton from any one that, at their own ex-
pense, petitioner about one year since pur-
chased larger size of said machine
called Babcocks fire extinguisher, q
very effective instrument for the quick
and early suppression of fires, and have
had the same in use ever since with great
effect for good, and until a very recent period
without opposition or objection from any one;
that the great end subserved by these machines
in the interest of petitioner is that they are
very easily handled, are ready for service with
out a moments preparation, and enable in
many cases the employees Of petitioner, who
are few in number, to thoroughly extinguish
fire before the ordinary fire apparatus pro-
vided by the government can be brought
upon the scene of conHagration and put
to work petitioner further AYERS that it
1,,,
to itself the right to run these ex-
tinguishers and work them at all fires
that may occur in the city Of New Orleans,
but AYERS that it has right to take them to
and use them for the protection OF such
property in said city which may be covered
by policies of insurance issued by petitioner;
that in such property petitioner has a quasi
ownership, and an interest to protect the
same from loss, damage or destruction by
fire, and consequently the right to lawfully
use any means within its power for such pur-
pose and that no person has any power in
law to prevent petitioner from using said ex-
tinguisher as aforesaid.
Now petitioner shows that by ordinance
No. 1910, Administration series, of the city of
New Orleans, being "an ordinance concern
ing the Fire Department, adopted in 1871, the
city of New Orleans entered into contract
with the Firemen's Charitable Association, a
created by law, domiciled in this
parish, for the eXtinguishment Of fires in the
First, Second, Third and Fourth Districts of
his city, which said ordinance provides the
various rules and regulations sought to be en-
forced by the city OF New Orleans concerning
Tres and the Fire Department and the Fire
mems Charitable Association that for nearly
! year past, by the express consent
# the proper authority Of said Fire
mems Charitable Association, and until |
Tery recent date, the officers and members |
If said association have co-operated with |
petitioner in the use of said larger Babcock |
ire extinguisher, and have successfully used |
me furnished to them by petitioner and |
'thers; that all the expense of the use of all
# said extinguishers have been borne by
and will continue to be so borne,
nd petitioner has never asked and never in
ends to ask any person Incorporation to bear
ny expense attending the use of said
nachines.
But on or about January 26, 1875 said Fire
lens Charitable Association, by its board of
irectors, or delegates, the members of said
oard being actuated by malice toward your
etitioner, and with the intention of ipjuring
etitioner, and to deprive petitioner of its
atural right to protect property covered by
S policies of insurance from loss, damage
nd destruction by fire, and to prevent petit
oner from using its said eXtinguisher as
foresaid, did wrongfully and illegally pass
nd adopt the following resolution
Resolre,l, That the Chief Engineer of the
department., Thomas O'Conner, be instructed
} prevent the Babcock engines from running
, fires, and if they persist to send them and
le men working them to prison.
That subsequently fire occurred in New
rleans on said Goth of January, 1875, or
,ereabouts, in certain premises situated on
irst street between Willow and Clara streets,
id occupied by Joseph Weiss and Mrs.
haffer, which premises and the property
sued by petitioners; that thereupon certain
nployes Of petitioners, named 4. Kalinski,
)hn Garvey, John Lowery and NJ. Cushen,
roceeded to said fire with a certain number
said cxtinguishers, herein designated as ;
e small or hand machines, each operat-
by one man, and arriving there
me time before the appearance of the
70 department proceeded to use said
achines for the extinguishment of said fire {
ID were working with marked success and '
lthout impeding in any way, the work of 9
e Fire Department Or infringing in any way a
| the powers delegated to its officers and
embers, when they We're interrupted by n
id chief engineer and at his request and d.
rtain officers OF the metropolitan police
rec and sent to the lookup Of the Fourth
unicipal Police Court, where charges were ,
eterred against them of violating said CITY
'dinance No. 1910 by said Chief Engineer
Conner, which they were bound over to
swer by the judge of said municipal police p
urt. I
Now petitioner ayers that it has sustained
eat damage by said action OF said Chief
lgineer O'Conner, said metropolitan police
roe and said FIremen's Charitable Associa-
N, and in the full sum of $1,000. for which
id Chief Engineer and and said Association
9 liable n solido to petitioner; and petit ,
'ner further AYERS that said parties threaten
and intend to further carry out said reso- c
ton, and to prevent petitioner from using f
said extinguishers, and that such action L
II cause irreparabIe loss and injury to peti. 4
ner, and that writ of injunction is neces- Il
ry to protect petitioners right in the tt
emises.
Petitioner further shows that it is pretended "
said chief enpipeer and said association |