New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-03-28
COURT RECORD.
Cnieea States Circuit Court.

MONDAY, MAKCH H. 1870
Unteea States Circait Court.
Present-Hon ". B. Woods: circuit judge.
United States vs.. James ncvey ct al.-Charge-
inducing an oacer Of the United StaIss 70 .eave ?
ton. Revised statutes Of the United state. sec;
ErTs Ts%on. 1s :asss surrey john
5.ss DDsessss,yo ohsl: z
surety John J. Brown; Andiew Jackson, surety
| Ferdinand Mark.; William e. Randolph, surety
Kennedy; James ". Dupre, surety Abraham Levy;
John Fisher, surety Burris D. Wood. Zach bond
was fixed st $1,000.
Supreme Court.
Present-Au the judgae.
The following decisions were rendered:
By CHIEF JUSTICE LuDELNG.
No. 571e. George s. Lacy, appellant. vs. Rufus
NAPLES and city Of New Oreens.,From superior
D:1es Govt VI. Mrs. Ann
E. Kittredge.-From thirteenth Judicial Ustrict.
Rehesring refused.
No. 62l6. Frank Wilson, executor, vs. q. 4. A An
derson appellsnt-From Thirteenth Judicial Dis
trict. Judgment affirmed:
No. 6o2s state va Joseph Rlchie.Manslaughter
Appeal from sentence of two years by Fourteenth
J.diciad District Court. Judgment afi rmed
No ess Hosis Mccoy agpesnt ys parsh Jna Of
ment reversed, and n0n.suit ordered.
No $685. state vs. D. g. Ftnderson.-Murder.
From Superior Criminal COurt. APpoo1 hch. SOL
tence Of isAth. The court can not take Jnnclal ca
notice OF the fact urged, that Judge braushn va was
not the judge Of the court or when the grand Jury
was impauoled. They must be proved IN IeSa
way, AMI not assumed. There is no bill OF exeep.
tions nor assignment Of errors Judgment afirn ed
Of Concord u i.~From Thu Judicial District.
The plaintiff sued the defendant 10 rece I'VE .ne
amount of Sill 900 with interest, evidenced oy Two
promiseory notes one for $4,000 and the other fOr
S6Ou6 y ya able to the order OF the Citizens BANK
Of Louisiana and bearing eight per cent per a.. an.
| date. These noseS st ate on their face that they
are given for money loaned by tie bank. Several
grounds OF defense are stated in the answer. oue
IL that r the police III Jury Of the parish Of Con
corda had not the po~ar to create debt BY Dor.
| aegotfabIe ms truments by which TO raise money;
see. 23 bu. pp lsO 232 2Sl q bu 4si: Edwards 10
parish Of Bossier; rs An. 50 and Msthi Va. parish
It is therefore, ordered that the judgment of the
cour. quo be affirmed with costa OF appeal.
BY JUSTICE rALlAFRRRo.
No. SAL State Vs. Cupid Brown.-Poisoning. Ap.
neal from o. mt euce Of imprs sonment Appeal from
| Fourteenth Judicial District. Case re emahued 10
| be tried de novo.
| hon. tutor.-From secord district Court The
plaintiff having recovered Judgment for me whole
Of his dem and in ls7s has no night now 70 sue i0f
No. 6Is6. o. < Hswley. public administrator. va
Abraham Haymsa ct a.; Louisiana state Bank,
No 6I33 Joseph Reboul W. Joseph BilRery, ap
peiisnt.~From ffth District Court. No jurisdic-
ton. The Of the TAX imposed on ~
| the controversy. The valoe Of the property de-
msnded to be feconveyed is shown to be $500.
Ia. 62O5. mrs. D. A. Taylor VI. R. S. Bowlee ct
al. .sprellant.-From Thirteenth judicial District.
Judgment reversed defendant to recover nom
No $3.50. State Vs. Sam Maxwell, periury..AP'
peal from sentence Of ave years by Second Judi
| cial District. Sentence and Judgment affirmed.
/ sa.Q SfatA JOhn THOMPSON, dieplACin2 Q
| svit.h. etc-ADpeal from sentence of three years
BY First District Court Judgment affirmed.
sr JUSTICE HOWELL.
No 435s g. A. Jaur ev ct ux. appellant, vs. Abe rt
G.. Ober.-From sixth District Court. For balance
ftwo notes Judgment reversed and plant TIN to
s'Ssl = HoeqSs oR 1 dsrthwate Lewis
Miller. appellant Prom Fourth District Court
| For damaxes for malicious arrest There was
5ss state JESSE Powell and Leo Glib
Mouths each by wsfth Judicial District
No. 6ei6 City of New Orleans va P. J: Ker, ap.
| pellaut.-From Superior District Court Jud2men
No 6lO3 John Kerwin ct a., appellants, vs. HI
. | bernia Insurance Company.-From Superior Dis
: trict Court. Judgment reversed and case re
No. si36. Hillery Edwards vs. William Kicks E
|, a., appellants From sixth Judicial District
No 6l47. state vs. David williams.-Arson Az
| peal from sentence Of seven years. Judgment al
No. S,e4 Executors Of John Bird vs. Angelina
| Lobdel Oce an saw mill third opponent and ~
pellantThe psivilege wa sss not aecoraec as =
Hc. sas. - Henry ". Strickland, appellant,
James " Terry.-From the Sixth Judicial District
The attorney I'd hoe a.1ed 1 to haze his rec !,
| reducing it to el00. aud thus affirmed.
No. $40 Statsvs James r. Richardson -Assaul
f %Sn1ss s tho sasa
.rict. Jud smeDt affirmed
81 JUSTICE wyLy.
M. sl35. Mrs. Mary B. Lacke Laftts, Duff Ii
Co.. sppellants-Fron s,xth D'stdiGt i ooala. - -
| und,r marital influence. The mortgage was a.
a | thorized by the Judge, and the defend ant WI
No. 6OOs. state ex rel. Citizens Bank appeia nt
the ruIdIs tSe Ctnens BANK
Q from the Judgment refusing mandamus to con
l pei the Funding Board to fund the sixty bonds
nnder act No. rs Of 1869, and are known as secon
y | mortgage bonds OF the New Orleans Mobile az
Q | Chattanooga Railroad Company guaranteed Dy %
. The defense is: TIE guarantee is void becaus
Riven after the adoption Of the constitutions M
| amendment limiting the State debt to SIS, 900 .oe
f ! "nS that limit had at the time of the guar ante
been exec eded that act No. 70 OF 1909 authorlzn
: the Governor to guIantee the second n mor,Sa2 :
| bonds of said company to the extent OF = iI:s
7 per mile, imposed certain conditions precedent
f 81 i. Inat the graz: should be accepted With
9 :. That the railroad should be located to Hou
L tor, Texas within eight months alter said
a J. That said corporation was to construct Il
q first sect on OF forty miles and have the same
9 running order within one year from the survey
u | tie entire line of railroad.
a That IT was to construct and lay the rails {
y the entire road to the Sabine river witha thrt
J | years from such survey and location and to Hou
ton, Texas, within si1 months thereafter.
That in case of failure OF said railroad conn par
said act provides that the obs cations of the Stat
= shall cease, and det rmine that said hrst section
forty miles was not IT. pc t WHIP VII th tae tme
+ Of January 1871. until long aflerward, and
!. | second section required by said act, has ev
: been completed, althou Zh the time for the compl
ton Of the entire road to Houston Texas, has lol
= Thai a failure to complete the first section
: sorty miles on or before the eighteenth OF Januar
y 1911 the obligations OF the State to guarantee "a
second mortgage bonds ceased and determine
q, ,arsntee was in violation Of the constitution.
= TIE defense was also made thar the bonds he
by relator and sought to 9e nnoea are no. % oO9.
), by act No Of 1874. The evidence shows that II
frst section Of forty miles was not completed !
Sy the act; that it not completed till after Il
6rst day of April, 1871 and that NO other section
n ! Of the road have hsen completed, although Il Il
Sestion .ve,ve of said act No. IS declares tn
g sin case Of failure Of the said company to surye
oc ate and construct the said main line Of railro'
d within the State of Louisiana. in the manner al
- within the time limited in this section Of this .!
" for such survey location and construction, Il
ls obligation Of the State Of Louisiana, by virtue
this act, to guarantee the second mortgage bon
Of eaid company las in the act prOvided) for
| upon that portion of the said main line of rairo
D. | not constructed within the time limited, sh,
- l cease aud determine and none of said seco
mortgage bol ds for upon that portion Of "a
main line of railroad not constructed within t
time limited shall be guaranteed by the State
Louisiana"