New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-07-07
COURT RECORD.
THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1876.
Superior Dis trict Court.

State ex rel. Attorney General Field vs.
F. 3. Gaudet Rule to dissolve the ipjunc-
| tiOn against defendant to prevent his acting
as president of the Board Of Health, sub
mitted by Assistant Attorney General Dib-
bic, acting Attorney General. Ordered that
it be dissolved without prejudice, as prayed
for. Motion in favor OF F. B, Gaudet, 7.
| k. Lemonnier and J. F. Firney, submitted,
| ana INJUNCTION against them dissolved.
| G. B. White vs.. Board of Health-Peti-
| toner alleges he leased the third story Of
No. l59 Canal street to the defendant,
| through its secretary. duly authorized. from
October /, 1872, to September 80, 1873, at
| the rate Of $500 PEI annum; tha: this lease
| has been continued year by year; that there
that the board ie liable for the ren: TO Sep
tember 80, 1876; that he has lien on its
| movable property; that June "a it moved
! its effects. and pcays tor judgment Of $500
| and provisional seizure on one binOcular
| microscope. one aneroid barometer, one
| pair Of chemical scales, three bookcases,
three desks, four tables. one telegraph bat
| terry, key, etc. Writ issueG as prayed for.
William Cruzat We. Thomas Carey, tax
| collector OF Third District.-InjunctiOn on
| sale of two lots Of property. advertised for
July II, issued on bond Of $500.
George w. Randolph We. E. Waggaman.
| sheriff OF Orleans.-Injuncti0n On sale Of
eighteen lote, seized in suit Of city of New
| Orleans vs. gu ccession Of William NJ. Ran
bond of $500.
| second District Court.
Successi0ns Of Elizabeth hess, John Stack
c. D. A. Barber, John j. Luger buhl, and
| Mrs: Christina Young, wife Of Joseph
Seither, opened.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de-
cisiop June q:
William r. Mills vs. j. @. A. Fellowe.-
The defendant IN this cause reside in the
Sixth District Of this city, and excepts to
the jurisdiction Of this court, on the ground
that the Second judicial District Court
alone has jurisdiction over him. This ex-
cepticn is based on the alleged effect of the
act No. As Of the session Of 1876, approved
March Is, 1876. 1t declares: That the
Second Judicial District of the State shall
Pla9uemilee, Jefferson and the Sixth and
Seventh districts of the parish Of Orlesne."
etc. This court has once before pronounced
an opinion on the constitutiOnality Of this
act, in another view Of its effects, in the
case Of the Lafayette Fire Insurance Com
pany vs. Helix, Eiben & Remmers. The de-
fendant, however, thought it might be
impelled by reasons which be urged with
some force, to review that opinion. He
|
whether Q law be unconstitutional it is
the custom and the duty Of courts to
hesitate, and 70 give them effect. Such iE
the rule. In Ogden vs.. Saunders, L Wheat,
p. go, Mr.. Justice Washington said: 1T is
put decent respect due to the wisdom, the
integrity and the patriotism Of the legisla
tive body by which any law is passed tc
presume in favor Of its validity until ite
violation OF the constitution ie proved be
yOnd su reasonable doubt Our own Su
preme Court has affirmed this doctrine il
some cases, and notably in that OF Edwards
vs. Dupuys. Counsel also argued that the
Legislature of State has all power no,
denied it by the constitution; that there was
no prohibition in the constitution which
prevented the Legislature Of Louisians
from extending the jurisdiction Of the Sec
ond judicial District Court over the Sixth
and Seventh Districts of the parish of Or
leans, and that it, therefore, had the con
stitutional power to do so. ! am not among
those who assert omnipotent power in The
State Legislatures in all cases where the
constitution has not expressly inter
posed an explicit restraint. l believe
such q doctrine effectually places some
the mercy of the Legislature. It Is some
times tyrannical, always dangerous. Th'
exercise of this power ie even now felt by
the people Of Louisiana in the form O.
taxes. Had a more safe doctrine prevailed
the Legislature would have limited it's ap
propriatlons, and consequently the taxes
to the absolute necessities Of the govern
| ment.
But let me return to the constitutionality
Of the act in question, as it is argued i
Affects the jurisdiction Of this court ovel
the Sixth and Seventh Districts of the par
ish of Orleans. Article eighty-three Of tht
constitution of Louisiana declares:
THAT until otherwise provided, there
ehall be seven district courts for the parief
of Orleans. The Fourth, Fifth
Sixth and Seventh District Courts shall
have exclusive jurisdiction in all civil caset
except probate" )" etc.
This court, then, is Q constitutional dis
trict court, constitutionally created and in
vested with jurisdiction all over the parish
of Orleans. The Sixth and Seventh Dis
tricts are in the parish of Orleans, and il
must follow that its jurisdiction constitu
tionally extends over them. It does nc,
lie in the power Of the Legislature te
limit it, territorially. in the parish
of Orleans to less than its entire area, what
ever that may be. 1t may possibly, per
haps, enlarge and extend the jurisdiction o.
the Second judicial District Court lal
though doubt it, for the reason that the
people have the right to vote for those whG
act as judges over their rights, except ir
cases of appointments), but the constitu
ton having fixed that of this court, and
having declared it to be coextensive with
the territorial limits of the parish of Or
leans, it must remain so as long as it re
mains court. The act IS therefore uncOn
stitutiOnal, in go far as it is contended it de
prives it of jurisdiction in this case. Tht
exception must be overruled.
100000 gold 100000 gola