The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-01-13
THE COURTS.
SUPERIOR CRIMINAL COURT.

SUPERIOR CRIMINAL COURT,
The most important legal question
discussed on Wednesday was the right
Of the Attorney General to file inforfni,-
tions In cases Of bribery. The motion
to qnssi the informations In the case Of
the State VS.. %. w. Devices, j. l.. Mat
thews, Ross Stuart, J. Davis and Il. II.
Ray, which charged them with receiv-
ing and Offering bribes. 1t will be re-.
collected that they were all indicted bv
a grand jury drawn and irnpanneled uai-,
der .ex.yndge IBraughn, which has been.
decided to be illegal, in CONSEQUENCES of
which the Attorney General flfed irlfor-
nations against them, and their coun.
sci made @ motion to quash them. on
the ground that the statute creating tho
offense was explicit in stating that the
manner OF proceeding against persons
charged with that offense was by In.
dictment.
The Attorney General, In answer To
their motion filed a brief, stating that
although the statute directing that the
proceedings were to be had by indict.
ment that 1t had not declared that to be-
the sole method Of procedure, and that
the statute was not mandatory but
directory, and he cited o clause Of Sec
ton 8 OF the Revised Statutes Of 1870.
which says that In all but capital cases.
where the word indictment Is used. IL
shall include information. The counsel
for the defendants, Charles L,lzenburg,
ESD, in answer, said that the statute
creating the offense Of bribery wns
created at a much later date than the
one referred to by Col. Field, and Was
passed by the Hahn House Of Repre-
sentatives (which by the way is the
same body OF which oil OF the accused
tnsx rn Srrrst Jnrn nA u l..Am
tion Of that House In forming this statute
to only have the parties brought to JUS
tiee by indictment. a'f Il
Col. Field especially requested the
Court not to defeat justice by quashing
the infOrmatiOns, us he said the State
could not appeal from the decision OF the
Court, and that the parties had already
been once indicted by a Grand Jury.
which was held to be- illegal, and II the
motion to quash was sustained the de-
PENDANTS would be liberated, whereas il
the Court would not entertain the mo-
tion to quash that the defendants would
have q right to appeal, and the 6,l-
preme Court could pass OH this impor-
tant point and none Of the rights OF the
parties be jeopardized
The Court took the motion under ad-
visement.
Other Motions Mr.. Castellanos,
counsel for the defendant In the cases
of tho State VS.. Gertrude Antoine, Hor-
ace Westley. Roman Marmoget and
Maty Estelle, filed the decree OF tlIe
Supreme Court reversing the Judgment
OF the Superior Court and making n
motion also In the same cases In arrest
OF the judgment Of the lower court.
Z. ORcilley, Esq, counsel Of the de-
fcndant, Michael Deloney,. charged
with stabbing with q dangerous weapon,
and convicted by the jury Of inflfcting
q wound less than mayhem, filed mo-
ton in arrest OF Judgment on the
ground that the verdict was not re-
sponsive. to the charge, and that tho
court had no Jurisdiction over the offense
for which the verdict was rendered.
The Court held that both questions
were important. but that he would de-
eide that the court had Jurisdiction over !
the verdict rendered and the power To
execute IL, but would take the question
Of the verdict being responsive to the
charge made In the information under
n} "A - Il
Arraigned J. J. Martin, accused of
willful and corrupt perjury, was ar
raigncd and plead not guilty.
Edward Bermudez, who plead guilty
to the charge Of using violence on q
Of the Metropolitan Police
force, was sentenced to sixty days con-
finement in the Parish Prison.
Continued State VS.. Belle BOyntOn.
md State VS.. Mr.. Bruim, TO January
10Th :; and State VS.. Frank Murphy, to
January 2Gth.
Nolle PROSTATE VS.. Arnnie Wallace.
FIRST DISTRICT COUNT.
Nolle Pros. State VS.. Robert Single
ton and M. Condor, charged with as
sault and battery. 8
U. 8. CIRCUIT couRr.i
New Suits Filed-In the Office Of the
clerk Of the y. s. Circuit Court pc-
tition has been filed by Mrs. Ellen G.
Reid, to set aside an act Of sale to Ger
lain property which was surrendered In
and the assignees are cited
TO appear and file an answer on Janu-
ary 18th.
Mrs. M Metcalf has filed an action
against the Louisiana Levee Company
on note for $692, which she alleges
She holds, has demanded payment, and
has been refused. She Is resident OF
SUPREME COURT.
Rehearings refused-No. 5471--Fred-
crick Kuntz vs.. John Baehr and Sheriff. 4
No. ,5709-State OF Louisiana vs.. Moses
Harvey.
No. 57lo-S State OF Louisiana vs.. ~.
Daniel.
No. 5741-John Coleman vs.. Fair
banks and Gilman. g. Cavaroc q Son,
No. 5s75-J. H. Harvey and wife vs.
Captain and owners OF steamer BOs-
sier. On rule against Sheriff.
No. 5917--Charles +. Behrens VS..
Robert J. Ker.
No. 5933-State Of Louisiana Vs., VIM.
Woodward and Mary McAuley.
Prot Proctor is going about, telling
that our sun is mucn Inferior to other
great lights OF the universe. Asst u
we're not enough for poor, down-trod-