The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-02-05
COURT NOTES.
United states Cire.ss Cont.

/ O01HeO StNveS Ct6GWu VO0ft.
| The Grand Jury were called. and twepty v two
answered 70 their names.
Conner vs. Brashenr This suit. by consent ~
cogpsel. was continued b next November term.
Company appeared through his counsel. Judge
Semmes. and wished to know If he could divulge
rertain messages sent over the lines and which.
~ the regulations Of the company. b. was pro-
could do so before the Grand Jury. ii appears
ne was simply summoned to appear before the
Grand Jury.
81, IN the case IF Ellery V. A. Brown h Co q rule
for r., new trial YES taken. :, p ,,..
The jury were called and reported TINT they
had not agreed upon their verdict. The Court
ordered that they retire to their room to deDib
The counsel for both plaintiff and defendant.
after the Jury retired, were willing 70 discharge
the Jury. The Court thought it host they should
charged.
The case Of William Bonner VS.. The City Of
New Orleans IT MIS-. was called. and counsel an
ss % eesG Ts made y " ts u New
and Great Northern Railroad Company. and by
them transferTed tg INC New Orleans Savings
.natat,Hn TIE gantiG socks 2 r., i9sago9nt
leans, Jackson and Great Northern Railroad
isosaie Maenhaut vs. The city Of New Orleans
et al. Ii Is ordered that the decree Of the third
of December. 1876. be re-engrossed upon the
minutes. and said decree now reads as follows;
answers, afIidavts aud the motion Of the plain
tits for an. INJUNCTION and receiver, md qpon
consideration 9f the premises the Court declares
thnt the collection Of taxes made for the payment
Of the interest on the consolidated bonds. issued
under the charter Of the city Of New Orleans. on
posit in the Louisiana National Bank. are trust
fund for The payment Of the coupons " interest,
which are due and becQming due on the seid
except whore the holders Of the said coupons
hasye consented I? accept. 2 portion Of the sum so
nanss q the sy w. e hs sts ju1 e9 oE
II Is therefore ordered that an Injunction issue
g the city q New. Orleans apd To- the Admins
Bank. enjoining and restraining them and each
ever. 50 pnch q The sssid funds 50 raised and
deposited as aforesaid. except the sums that
may be- necessary for the payment Of interest
coupons on said consolidated loan. the holders
said city ordinance NJ. $50 approved july a.
1875. and the city Of Now Orleans and the Louis
lana National Bank. its depositary, are fully
authorized. and i IL their duty under the acts o
the Legislature. 10 apply such sums to the pay
lnent VI the coupons so designated and not paid
IN the ordinary course Of administration. II is
further ordered that tho appointment Of re-
ceivcr be continued. with privilege 10 the plain
tjfs e dr,a the same - the event q con
In the case Of william Bonner vs. The City of
New Orleans Ut al after hearing evidence and
argument Of counsel. the same was taken under
In the case Of H. Fernandez VS., D. II. Harrison,
The Jury having finally reported that they could
not agree. we're discharged
Superior District Court.
The case Of Richard VS.. Haber, an action
wherein th9 defendant is sued for failure to
same. IL on trial IN the above court.
August Richard va. Abraham Haber ct al,
The INJUNCTION In this case was made perpetual
l.. RI Barrett vs. the city Of New Orleans. This
WAS suit for wages. after plaintiff had been dis
yDl,r In thn
Of tho Administrator Of Public Accounts. II was
1rsod h On thS Ha q h9 soanse' o me
smp" 10y Or discharge Clerk, Without the ap
prevail Of the Council. Plaintiffs appointment
was approved by the Council; on his discharge
Barrott should have made the issue at the time
of his discharge" judgment was Tor the defend |
In the eases Of samuel Smith and Andrew
Smith vs.. The City OF New Orleans and Eugene |
WSaegamaq qjvl sheriff and Y " Smith ST., n,,N rs
filed an exception. also a motion and affidavit for |
the removal of tho cause from this court 10 tho |
United States Circuit Court, whom. by consent |
John ". New VS.. La. Central stem Railroad
Suit for attorneys fees for the sum ri 5000. There
gas judgement f2r ts plaintiff and a. The Court
James .Warbeck VS. Otto Kratz and tho First
Central Diffusion Process Sugar Manufacturing
Company This was n suit for wages as Civil
Engineer against Otto Kratz individually and
the Company Judgment was rendered for the
plaintiff and against the Company for the sum
Superior Criminal Court.
In the case Of the State va. Jpe Harrison con
victed Of assaulting police officer, the defend
ant was sentenced to BIO confined in the Parish
Prison for ten days.
Joseph Frank. who plcnd guilty to the charge
Of carrying concealed weapon, was also
fenced FOR the same time to the Same place.
The case Of tho state vs. James Wood and w.
II. Durham, accused Of willfu and corrupt per
NJ ypnl pp,, iudpflnifply
All other cases continued, and tho court adj
iourned until 10 u. m. Saturday. tho 5th inst
First District Court.
Mrs. Bailey. James Thompson and Robert
on rv a r. a na r nn p
Pat. Hcwcs. convicted Of petty larceny was
sentenced to one days Imprisonment In the
Parish Prison.
Mary Johnson. eaRyicted Of assault and bat
tory. but recopmended to the mercy Of the court.
was fined ono dollar or. in default Of payment.
10 BE- imprisoned ono day IN the Parish Prison,
Tho Jury having been discharged on Thurs
day. the 81. there was no other business before
Second District Court.
New SUGGESTIONS: Tho succession Of Jean
Nousty was opened
The rulc in tho Halpn succession case is still
The succession Of Robert Geddes.-On the op-
position q Virginia Y. and Mary z Geddes.
grandchdro ra Of J9hn Godde y brother Of dc
be- put upon the tstbleau Of distribution fled by
tho executor Il. Warren. ESQ, and A.. J. Where. |
ESD. attorneys for tho opponents. II. W. Rem
shaw. ESD. attorney for Tie executor, and J. Adj.
Ilozer. ESD, attorney for tho legateds. who had
been recognized and placed upon tho tablcau.
When. after hearing evidence and tho argu-
ment the Court decided that the children mon
Toned in tho testator's will meant children and
only children. and dismissed the opposition.
Fourth District Court.
Tho rule in relation to the bond in the case Of
Chas johnson w. Edward NJ Ivcns Is on trial.
The case Of Philip Schoen ys. Mr.. and Mrs.
Iellor ctc.-Tho jury were still sitting late. and
evening. were locked up for the night.
Finh District Court.
Tho judgment by default in the case Of Cccilo
Moudg w. Jean Beaufort. her husband. de-
,rccing q separation Of property and u dissolu-
ion of the community of acuuets and gains
existing between the parties, IL con
rmcd.
HEAVY SUIT FOR DAMAGES. .ist 81 arc claim
sd for alleged violence, tortious acts in mprs-
)ning tho plaintiff in the vault Of the Gerinania
Fifth District Court on the 3lst of January. 1876
r. Dudcnhefcr W. /. Schneider and J. Cassard
In solido. The following Is copy OF the petition
lied In this ease: The petition of Ferdinand
Dudcnhefer. OF this city. respectfully shows
That Louis Schneider and Jules Cassard both
If this city. are indebted. in solido. to your pc
itioncr in the full sum Of twenty-seven thou
sand one hundred and thirty-one 5t-1o0 dola r.
'or this. TO wit: That on or about the I'D
lay Of May. 1875. said Louis Schneider and
Jules Cassard, having unlawfully inclosed
md imprisoned petitioner, against his will
md consent, ~ tho vault OF the Ger