New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-08-09
COURT RECORD.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1876.
Superior District Court.

Superior District Court.
The city Of New Orleans vs.. Widow A.
Castillo.-Intervention and third Opposi.
ton of Evelina r. Mills and William Rec
Mills, representing Susan Henrietta Cas-
tillo as sole owner of property seized on a
the above case died before the suit was it,
stituted, and asking th1t the sheriff be
restrained from selling. Injunction issued
on bond of $1,000.
Second District Court.
SUGGESTIONS of Theodore Hemm and Bar
nett B. Hart opened.
Third District Court.
Judge Meunier rendered the following 6
decision:
State of Louisiana ex rel. Jean Dantag-
non vs.. William Pagan, criminal sheriff for
the parish of Observation-Disclosures for q
writ of habeas corpus.
The relator complained that he is unlawfulIy de-
prived Of his liberty by William Fagan Esq Grim.
inal sheriff of the parish Of Orleans, on q pre-
tended commitment issued IN the suit entitled
the docket Of the Superior District Conrt for the
parish Of Orleans which said suit was, before said
pretended commitment issue1, transferred from
said Superior District Court into the Circuit Court
of the United States for the district of Louisiana
and that said Superior Dietrict Court was there
fore without jurisdiction in said cause. The re.
under which the criminal sheriff detains him N
his custody 10 irregular and informal, faid com.
mitment mailing no mention OF the cause OF Of the
relator also alleges that said Superior District
Court was and 10 without jurisdiction. 'ratiore
materi2 the only court having jurisdiction being
the Firit District Court for the parish Of Orleans
From the documents offered IN evidence and on
fe it appears that on the fourth instant writ Of
Injunction issued from tEe Superior District Court
in the above mentioned case of A. Hsyem vs. H.
dwell ct al, commanding and prohi biting the re.
lator herein from opening, conducting or carry,
the Magazine Street Market, q public market stu
ated in the Fourth District of New Orleans" On
the day after the service of the writ Of injunction
instant said relator having continued his private
market within twelve squares of the Magazine
day tine fifth instantly took rule before the Supe-
ri0r District Court against said relator to show
cause why be should not be punished for q con.
tempt Of the authority of the Superior District
Court. On the seventh instant, that is, on the day
of the trial of the rule for contempt and before the
pf
petition setting forth that Abraham Hayem is an
alien; that the suit of A. Hayem VS.. dwell ct al.
involved exceeds the sum Of $500; and the said
relator prays that under the act of Congress, ap-
proved March g. 1875, providing for the removal Of
United States, his bond be accepted and the suit
of Hayem vs.. b. dwell be declared transferred to
the United States Circuit Court for the fifth cir
cult and district of Louisiana and that said Supe.
rior District Court proceed no further with said
suit. On the trial Of the rule for contempt. sub.
having been sentenced to ten days imprisonment
in the Parish Prison he now applies to this court
The law makes the judge before whom the con-
tempt 10 alleged to have been committed the sole
Judge Of what constitutes contempt of his au-
thOrity. The question, therefore, whether the
relator herein has committed . contempt Of the
authority Of the Superior District Court not is
matter which this court has no authority to in
The only two questions which am called upon
to examine in this case are these: First, 10 the
mittimus in due legal form; second has the Supe-
fined by law The commitment under which Dan.
tagnon 10 to-day confined in the Parish Prison is in
the following language:
Whereas, Jean Dantagnon has this day been
found guilty OF contempt of the authority of this
honorable Superior District Court, and was foI
such contempt sentenced to be committed to the
Parish Prison for ten days, n0w therefore, you,
the civil sheriff are hereby commanded to convey
the said Jean Dantagnon to the Parish Prison, ETC.
think that that mittimus is not in due legal
form, that it, 10 deficient in legal requisite com
mitment merely alleging that the relator has
been found guilty Of a contempt Of the authority
Of the Superior District Court is not, IN my
0pielOn, in such form as contemplated Dy the
law. 1t should not state merely that the re-
lator has been!fOunG guilty on contempt Of
court, but that, that he has been found guilty
contempt of the authority of the court, and it
should further state the nature Of the contempt
that is, how Or in what manner the contempt hat
been committed. In this case, the mit:imus to be
in due legal form, should state that DantagnoI
has been found guilty Of having willfully an6
criminally committed q contempt Of the authority
Of the court by continuing to open, conduct ant
carry on his private market in disregard and II
violation Of the order issued by the Superior Dis
trict Court. In favoriem hbertatie formaiitiel
of the law should always be strictly adhered to.
Having expressed the 0piniOnlthat the commit
ment under which the relatOr is confined in th'
Parish Prison ia not in due legal form, and there
fore deficient, it becomes unnecessary to examine
the question whether the Superior District C0ur
was divested not Of all Jurisdiction over the sui
of A. Hsyem VI. q. Olwen ct ais, after the filing o
the REALTORS molten, together with his bond, be
fore the said court under the act of Congress o
March 3, 1875.
For these reasons 1t 10 ordered and decreed thai
the rule herein sued out be made absolute ant
that the relator be released from the custody o
the criminal Dheri6.