New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-12-19
COURT RECORD.
se. fIls - ~
MONDAY, DEcEMBER lS. 1876.

Presentation. B. G. Billings, District Judge.
s ssf E: on
United S:ats W. p. Jones Yorke-verdict foz
Sane Va. Rsrn.rd Nct,,nnis.-verd,ct for s7sa
Same Va G.moa ox.-verdict for $9a 93
Same W. z. W. TAliaferro, John Rsy.J Madison
Wells and William Bailey-verdict f1r e969 80.
Mobile and Texas Railroad Company. Report Of
msster postponed to July !.
f. ID. Ames. teustee W. same.-Clsms referred
Supreme Court. f r
Preeent-An the Judges.
The following decisions we're rendered:
RRHBARINGs GRANTED.
No el5a. Catherine Jones W. joseph Henry.
No. 1924. State OK rel. New York Guaranty and
Indemnity O. mpany vs. Boa, d of Liquidation
REHEAR'NGs eEPusRD.
No. 6082 Benjamin. g. HARRISON vs.. Carondelet
Street and Carrollson Railroad Company. A. s. Col
Nc. 6la2. same vs. same. Henry Heuchezt gar.
Nc. $780, Felix Gottsch.lk VI. Henry yer.
No. SSH Mrs. Charl Mar. ,aut vs. Pierre Du-
Nc. 6o34. james weod vs. Eugene Waggsman,
sheriff, md city OF New Orleans.
No. 59a. Isidore Newman l. Brother W. NJ. Kauf
No. 4sas. Caleb Barker W. B. M. arider and vii
Il No. 4sss Mrs. sallie J. Piaksten ve. E. s. Morse
and Jane. 3. Zunts.
No. 63l0 State vr. Samuel Baras.-Ffom Supe.
rior Crin inal Court. Grand la ceny. Sentence of
five ysa,s judgment d. Loan and p,edp,
Assoc atior.-Pra3ia Ing tor liauidation., F!on
Superior District court. Appoir tment Of liquida
No. s27i. John Kuhl. appellant, vs Given, Watts
Co.-From Four District Court. Motion to dis
piss appMl Ov.rrul d.
Lapge, appellant. From Fourth District Court.
Notion to dismiss overruled.
.ss g;Sn appellant g fster
for wo,k AZ d mater;alr, plaintiff contending that
he o. es only esss. sJuds mt affirmed.
Justice. .Wyly dssentA %
No. es36 Marie l. BeeLe Va jusge ofths Sixth Dis:
sfdsyit to tss judge Of the sixth District Ooust
srounds for an injun tion - restfasn the sal, Of
Of one jP. Guinatlt. The Judge. instead Of grant:
G1inault to chow cause Why the Injunction should
mot Be- ersnted % prayed for, and upon hearing ,he
:sd Tae to tss cou anS
wits of mandamus and px0hibiii IN to compel the
district judge to grant the injunction on her pe,i
seizure and sale pending this app cation. To th+
wrils the judge answers thaS on "rube nisa II
SUED in the case Of Marie Beebe vs; J. r Gai:
nault under rule Nos. 81 and % Of the distr ct
vits and dseumenfary svideDes that the obi lga-
# sns o 0s s the 10
t;O.er was made by her from I rmAti0n without
any personal know lsog &c Of the facts sworn to,
no bond being lei or teDdered - required by law.
The court in is legal discretion refused t5e In
Tue plaintiff. in her application to this court al
leoea that ON the trial of the rnle in the lower
court sac WAS not permitted to int trOduce rebut-
ting evidence. and re,tsrates the grounds for IN
-, an inin,'c without bond. and she insists
that upon the showing made to the district judge
she was entitled OF night to the writ, and that
there IL NO law authoaismg the preceding called
Article 7ss, Code Of Practice, relied ON by p)sia
tiff, enacts that the debtor against whom this
ort er of seizure and lie kh, ha We been re ndeed
NAV obtain au ipjuAct.oa to suspend the sale if
before the time of sale, he files in the court is.
ing the o:dsr bis opposition in writing, alleRiul
eome of the reasons c0ntaxel in the ollOwing
article. ana OF which he ss ears to the truth"
The Iea ou Civ 10 this instance is alleged fraud
It has been often held the: the writ of ma damu'
viii ISSUE only 10 compel the per formaucs of duty
imposed BY law and in whcA no discre tiOI IL to b.
exercised. The issuance Of an injunction is mo-
discretion, sunj ct. OF course. to RVS on BY thu
court in cases properly brought up. mandanus
therefore, viii not issue to compel "a Judg;
to grant an Injunction. Ihis co1r. is not vested
With Q sups riof c0atr0l over all inferior COURT
90 as to compel them to give remedies aud do act'
noius IN iuds%snt and even wlioly here such srro
eau not be corrected b. this tribuna'. But tn:
presumption is that he judge viii do his duty II
make hlm responsible to another r.bunal thoe
this. "
the de1 isiOn On the rue nisi, but We are no
asked for . mandamus 70 compel an appeal. Tit
question ss to the legality Of the process ding b.
o
the dtstli.t cOutts are not properly before us II
this proceeding. Jurs 10 appellate iurisdietiol
only. and to be exercised In Tie mode Pr scr1Ost
/. is therefore sfdered thar the application fo,
write Of msndamus and Irohibition hsrsia be dis
.s Chisf Jussics Ladsing and Justice wyly in eeps
rate opiniO 40 concur. Justices Morgan and Leon
T No. ~ siss. ss@Ssi Lawson vs George 1: Kssn. enc
william Aoran, appelIants.-From Fifth Distdc1
Court. GA bond Of indemaity, La .sou's name ap
cause OF actior. The plea Of re- jude t. faafe q
the other Auit wae in aami atty. aud this 10 ON the
bond, G. G. mss. judgment amended BY i1ss Z inl
smrmed. Chief Justice LudelinG disseata
No. S306. Lalauee Grcjean nanufaeturing Com
ss.n v aessse 81 sccds sOt
deiendants tn. in hands Of civil sheriff on suit O
intervenor. The sale OF goods was made 10 HeH
ed The
worth. II A $50. TIE debtors, were divest. d o.
possession, but not Of their ewn act. To change
indgment Judgment affirmed. Justice Leonari
ccncurs on the fist ground only.
No 63i4. State ex lIel. James Lon9s treet Va
b,
pany, appe llants From superior District Court
ke!attr asked a mandamus for his salary as I
Lsvee Commissioner. The case discloses no Gauss
for it. 1t is only when M eial DUTY Is I'M,
posed by law On an officer that q mandaUus will
| fie against lin. No.tuch outy is shown in thi'
case. Judgment reversei
! Charles ,Ge1main.-FIOm Sixth Dist.ict Court
| The jud gme1t final. Motion to smiss refused
| No. 62s2 State vs. Jose Gruso, sppellant.-Fron
Sentence Of hard labor for life. The fact that t..
| party injured made complail 1t may be proved
but not by neaTsaY sosoa m m ae ~
maaded Mr.. Justice Leonard took no part in tn
| decision.
Mackison. appeliants-From Fifth Di trict Coul'
Lagao did not sign the notes nor were they Issue
in The course of business. Judgment leversed q
No. $685. Mutual National Bank We. Jean Rote
/ ct al appellal ts.-From Sixth District Cou.
Against the drawers aad ipdorsers Of note t
No. Bank. nns pa1ss sanEns & @ sss % Pass Notes az
| Bills. IS; . urr 12l. Judgment affirmed. "
SIG Hssm wilson Co. iosRss sRessiSa' S's:r
Court. The service on one o: the obligcr. Of II
| note In solidO does not interrupt prescription O
cept a. to creditors. G. G. 3sss. Judgment .
No. 643s. Succession of h. D. Cochrane. PRO
the parish OF Jeherson. Motion to dismias apps
No. 6ssl. Union insurance Company, va Y.
pelohine Benit, appellant-From Sixth Distri
Court. There is 10 error. Judgment affiime
| with ten per cent damages.
| Nc. 642l. L. l. MayennO VS.. Mrs. J. h. Millaudo
/ appellant From Superior District Court. Moth
to dlsmiss appeal refused.
| No. GAL State We. Adrian Eveque AMI EuGe
! Godin appellanta-From Superior Criminal O0u
| Murd. r; appeal from sentence of dea th on Adri
| Eveque The refusal to reject juror as not bel
a registered voter does not appear to have injur
| the defense. judgment affirmed.
By JUSTICE wYLY.
No. 64l3. Mrs. E iza Mccormick, appellant, vs.
| O'Sullivan cor stable. ct aL-FIom SUPERIOR D
tr ct CourF. Injunction on sale. Plaintiff was d
| suhorized to sue. Ihe sale was 70 satisfy JIe
| meu, of $68 axaiast the husha d; this sut lnvOlS
| the ownership OF the properly Of over $5OO. U.
| 398. An authoriz aton TO institute az prosecu
| this suit" is sufficieot for aB appeal 1t is INN
| te isl vi ether the husband signed the BOND or
II m; YufOn of the record is not q Ouud to dl9m