New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-11-22
COURT RECORD.
TUESDAY, NovE,lBs1 81, 1876.
United States Circuit Gear

L AA~OVADo
TUESDAY, NovExssR 81, 1876
United States Circuit Court.
Presentation. e. C. Billings, distrlo
Judge.
william w. johnson ct q VI. Scherck 4
Decentralization against using trad
| mark OF Pixies Magnolia whisky issued pen
dente lite against ryra Hill.
supreme Court.
The following members of the bar ar
constituted the committee of examination
for the present term: Edward Bermudez
chairman; Henry J. Leoyy. Guy Duplsn
| tier, John 81 New, Alfred Grims, E. Howsr,
Fsrrar, ThOmas Gilmore.
The following opinion was rendered:
BIZ JUSTICE LEONARD.
State ex rel. Matthew Roques vs. William
Fagin, criminal sheriff.-The relator bein,
in custody, prays to be discharged BY thi
court, on . writ Of habeas corpus, sileeins
that he has been illegally imprisoned fol
contempt by the judge Of the Superior DIS
trict Court. at the instance OF one Charlie,
Lsnge.
1t seems that Lange obtained from thu
Superior District Court an order of injunc
tion against Rcques. alleging that the latter
wss conducting q private market, to plain
tiH's detriment; that such conduct on the
part Of Lange wa, illegal, and caused oil ain
tit an irreparable injury. The Judge or
dered an Injunction to issue upon plaintiffs
giving bond in the sum of $1,000. Roquee
disObeyed the Injunction and was impris.
Oned in consequence.
The first question that arises ie, has this
court jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus
in such case? Article seventy -four of the
constitution of 1868 declares that the Su-
preme Court shall have appellate jurisdio.
ton only, 'exce pit in the cases hereinafter
mentioned;' Article seventy seven declares
that the Supreme Court aud each of the
judges thereof shsll have power to Issue
writs of habeas corpus in cases in which
they may have appellate jurisdiction. This
article OF the present constitution is
identical with article sixty-seven of the
constitution of l845 and article sixty nine
of the constitution of 1869. In the cases of
er parte Mitchell, A., 43, and State OK rel
Cook. or Keeper vs.. Parish Prison, Is A.,
VOORHEES,, j., who delivered the opinion
of the court in the latter cases, that ''in
matters Of habeas corpus the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court is original, and not
appellate"
IL the present case one in which We may
b ave appellate Jurisdiction? We think it
is. The amount involved is not merely the
$500 damages claimed by plaintiff, but the
interest of defendant in his present bust
ness, which largely exceeds $500, IS shown
by his affidavit. We tn erefore have juris-
diction by original proceeding. which the
matter before us manites.ly is las no judg-
ment Of the lower court is appealed FRONT,
to inquire into the rightfulness of RoQue's
imprisonment.
1t is admitted by counsel for Roques that
We can not afford relief if the lower court
had jurisdiction to grant the injunction.
The Superior District Court is vested by the
statute creating it with power of Injunction.
Article 26o of the Code of Practice declares
that "iniuDction is q mandate obtained from
. court by plaintiff prohibiting one from
doing an act wbich he concludes may be in
furious to him or may impair right which
be claims" LANCE swears that Roques is
injuring him and impairing his rights.
Whether the particular act which causes
such injury or impairment is suficient to
authorize an Injunction is for the Judge
when application is made for the order,
to determine. And whether, also, the
founded or not is to be determined on the
trial thereof in the lower court, and after.
wards on appeal. It the order was i'm
properly granted Roques will have his
remedy for damages on the bond. But
he can not disObey the Injunction with
impunity while it is still in force We
do not wish to be understood as saying that
Roques has no remedy if he has suffered an
injury at the hands of the lower court, but
it is manifest that he can not be relieved in
the present proceeding.
1t is therefore ordered that the rule for
habeas corpus be discharged at the cost of
the relstOr, and that he be remanded to
prison.
Morgan, J. Passing over the question of
the jurisdiction of this court upon which it
is not necessary for me to express an
opinion. agree with the majority that the
Superior District Court has jurisdiction
over the case out of which the proceeding
now before us grew, and therefore concur
in the decree.
Howell, j , took no part in the decision of
the case.
Superior District Court.
M. Lannes vs. B. Barthe.-Private mar
kets (Magazinel. Attachment issued for
Barthe.
Louis Bales vs. Louis Eris.-Same
(Treme). Attachment issued for Desiree
GregOire.
Guiliaume Soules vs.. B. Barres.-Same
(Frencb). Attachment issued for A. Bodan.
Pierre Lannes vs. Workingnen's Bank
Injunction against sale of certain property
made perpetual.
State OK rel. Daniel Shay vs. Mechanics
No. E -ReIator alleges that under act No.
so of March "a, 1887 he is entitled to privi-
leges of honorable discharge, being placed
on exempt roll, etc; that he was on said
roll. but was unlawfully removed October
6, 1874, and prays for q mandamus to be
restored to his rights. Cause to be shown
November 81
State ex rel. F. H. vernado vs.. George
B. JOhnson.-RelatOr alleges that he pur-
chased, January Is, 1876, of j. B. Caron,
tax collector, certain property, and the
Auditor, though the time of exemption has
expired, refuses to give q deed, and asks
to compel him. Rule nisi issued
for November %.
Superior Criminal Court.
DEMURRER AMENDED.
State va. Pat Creagh, refusing Michael
Casey egistration.-The amendment to the
demurrer to quash the indictment sets
forth:
|. The indictment is vague and INSULT
Gent in this: 1t does not set forth specifically
and sufficiently said Michael Casey's right
to vote or register, and when or whereof
that right consisted and was acquired.
9. This court is without Jurisdiction ia
this: The otfense charged, if an offense at
all, is a violation Of and punishable by
sections $685. 55l2 and 55l3 of the United
States Revised Statutes, and ia within the
exclusive Jurisdiction of the United States
courts.
g. That section thirty-one of act No. l55
of acts of 1874 is unconstitutional and void
ia this: 1t is in glaring violation of articles
8, 10, l02 and la Of the State contitution.
MOTIONS.
Grand larceny-Joe Albo, alias Alebau,
convicted November 9. Motion for new
trial refused.
Robbery-Mollie Robinson and Marie
Davis, convicted October 6. Motion for
new trial refused.
CONVICTED.
Grand larceny-G Gorge Hardy, charged
with picking the pocket of Mrs. Marie