New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-02-15

| ground for new trial 25 A. 537; wharf, C.
L. 56S; Bishop $50. Judgment affirmed.
| No. 1886. Milton Benner vs. w. Van
Norden, appellant.-From Fifth District
Court. Judgment affirmed.
No 6O8f. State vs. Jack Thomas, alias
Blind Jack.-Burglary, etc. Ffon FIT
teenth judicial District Sentence Of ten
years affirmed.
No. 6lQ7. Pierre Rousseau ys. estate of
Blaize Bourgeois, Widow Valentine Triche,
appellant.-From Fifteenth District Court
On whether the plea Of lis penGens pre-
walls. The case of Taylor We. Hill; 81 A.
639 does not apply. Judgment affirmed.
No. GIG Nicholas Verret vs. Francois
Gandin, tutor ct al, appel!ant.-From
Thirteenth Judicial District Court. Ap-
peal dismissed with costs.
BY JUSTICE WHY.
No. 1898. Succession of Francois Belloeq-
Judgment avoided and case remanded.
Justice Howell concurring, aud Chief JUS
tice LudeliDg and Justice Talliaferro dis
senting.
No 5lls City of New Orleans VS.. John
w. Cannon, appellant-From Superior Dis
trict Court. This is q controversy for city
taxes. The defense is that the property
taxed does not belong to the defendant;
that he holds it merely under lease, the
owner being the POydras Female Orphan
Asylum.
1t is proved that lot No. /, in square No.
2l7, bounded by Carondelet, st. Ch aries, St..
Joseph and Julia streets, upon which the
taxes are claimed, belongs, as stated. to the
Poy dras Female Orphan Asylum; that the
same was leased for fifty years to R: w.
Montgomery in 1856, and that defendant
holds under said lease. The lessee is not
liable for the taxes. 18 A., 5l3; % A., 44j;
Revised Code, 27O2.
Plaintiff however, contends under the au-
thority Of the case of 5. P. Russ. decided
during last term, that the buildings and
improvements on the leased premises, erect
ed and owned oy defendant, are subject to
taxation, and defendant IS bound therefor.
That question only arises when plaintiff
presents al agreement there on against de-
fendant, but here the assessment is on lot
No. 81 ia square No 2i7, bounded by the
streets mentioned. 1t is therefore ordered
that the jud dgment herein in favor of plain
tiff be annulled, and it is ordered that
plaintiffs sui. be dismissed with costs.
No 6092. Joseph o. Toups vs.. Edward
MeeeeI, appellant. From the fifteenth Judi
cial District. Judgment affirmed.
No. 29G0. Peter Hand, tutor, We. James
West, appellant.-D-fendant agreed to
teach the minor Charles K, Brand the pro-
fessiOn of dentis-, TO read, etc, and paw a
certain cOmp' nsation. 1t is alleged he did
not comply, but compelled the minor to per-
form menial services, etc. the contract
was made with the minor, and falls under
c. G. 1871. TIL de endant neglected and
abused the minor, or permitted it TO be
done, and has committed a breach of the
contract. c. e. 2749; Orphan Asylum VS..
Mississippi Marine Insurance Company, 8
La, 1888; R, 3le; 3 A., 652; 3 L. 299; u L.,
81; ID L., 36O. Judgment for $500 affirmed.
No. 39l7. Jean Bertbin, appellant, VS..
Crescent City Live Stock Landing and
Slaughterhouse Company-It is a question
of law whether the defendants had the
right to change the location of the Slaugh-
terhouse Company under act ll8 of 1869.
The decision proceeds. after an analysis of
petition and answer, to consider the act
section by section, and concludes the stock
landing was permanent and not q tempo
rary location; that the corporation had no
lish as many Slaughterhouses as necessary.
but having l6eated and complied with all
the laws concerning it, and compelled the
butchers to repair to it. the company was
powerless to change it The unconventional
demand, and the injunction applied for by
defendant can not be allowed. Judgment
anuulled, and it is decreed that the injunc-
ton hert in be made perpetual, and that de-
fendant be required to reopen the slaughter
river. and afford plaintiff and other butch
ers all necessary facilities and accommoda-
tions for pursuing their occupation. Justice
Morgan dissents.
No. 1917. Jean Larrieux vs. same.--See
above, same number. Judgment annulled.
No. 1917. Francis FrIlot vs.. eame.-See
above, same number. Judgment annulled.
No. 1917. Jane Stafford Vs. same.-See
above. same number. Judgment annulled.
No. 39l7. Sylvan Blousson vs. same.-See
above, same number. Judgment annulled.
Rufus Waples.-From Superior District
Court. Judgment affirmed.
Justice Morgan dissenting; Justice Talia-
ferro cOncurring in the dissenting opinion
No. 47GS Nathaniel B. Merrill vs.. Mary
Lawrence Flint, his wife, appellant.-From
Fifth District Court. Judgment affirmed
No. 5S94. Rudolph Beer, appellent, vs..
George Dirmeyer. - From Fifth District
Court. Judgme nj affirmed.
No. 6025. The State of Louisiana vs. Will
liam l.. Thompson, appellant.-From Supe-
rior Criminal Court. Judgment affirmed.
No. 4510. Walter Bailey, Mrs. Aldrich VS..
City of Carrollton, Mayor and Council, ap-
pellant-FiOm Second Judicial District
Court judgment affirmed.
No. 1852 Robert A. Lucas ct al, heirs of
James II. Shepard, appellants, vs. Ellen c.
Brooks, etc, heirs Of 4. D. Shepard
Identical with same vs. same, % A., III.
Judgment affirmed.
No. COOL. Succession of Hampton Elliott
From Second District Court. Judgment
amended by rejecting the claim Of $2050 of
Winchester g. North, and affirmed.
No. 5843 State ex rel John Larrieux VS..
Judge of Superior District Court.-The
question raised in the Superior District
COnrt by the issuance of an INJUNCTION
during the pendency of the suit between
plaintiff and the Crescent City Live Stock
Landing and Slaughter House Company,
restraining plaintiff from pursuing his avo-
and by the Injunction the Superior District
Court invaded the appellate Jurisdiction of
this court. Prohibition made perpetual.
Justice Morgan dissents.
No. GIG. Patrick Higgins vs. C. C.
Halay.-This case was tried in 1874 (See 26
A 36S) and remanded on plaintiffs motion
to learn if the jury had been improperly in
fluenced and the plaintiff failed to establish
it. No appeal was taken, counsel agreeing
to submit the case on the record. Twelve
months have elapsed. This court has no
not give it. % A., 543 % A., 458; "a A. 276;
81 A., 649. Rule to compel compliance with
the agreement discharged.
Chef Justice Ludeling dissente, Justice
Morgan concurring with him.
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No 6ll8 State, ex rel. Hugo Redwitz, vs.
judge Sixth District Court. As the cum in
dispute was $49l, interest 50 and costs SO,
the amount involved was $685. Mandamus
made peremptory.
No. ALL. Henry G. Jeter VS.. D. B. Penn,
sppellant.--From Sixth District Court.
Suit for thirteenth of the product of two
plantations under contract as manager.
Judgm+ mt reduced to $4SJ 80.
No. 4677. Sophia Q .inn, appellant, vs..
the Manhattan Life Insurance Company Of
New YOrk-FrOm Sixth District Court.
j Judgment affirmed.
No. AIS E. w. Burbank vs.. c. E Slayback.