New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-11-04

FRIDAY, novElnER q l06.


Il. h. COllet W. j. n. C0uget ct all. n.
Couget, Joseph Cszes. J. n. Ssbarque, j.
n. Duoaine ordered to show cause on Mon
day. November 6, why they should not be
iDjunctions sued ont sgainst them by the
above plaintiff, butcher in the IRENE Mar
ket.
Martin LsnDas W. H. A. dwell; Pierre
Lacaze Va. Sylvan Bataille; same W. j.
Mschado ct ale; same We. John Schmitt;
Louis Bales W. F. Dominique ct ais; same
ve: Louis Eris ct ale.
Wnts OF attachments issued against II.
A: Dwell, Sylvan B.tsille; William
Desire Gregoire, Bernard Bsrthe, Adam
Wagner, F. Commingue, B. Mesders, Syl-
vain Vidalit, D. Couget, r. Dastingue, N.
Lacassin and j. NJ. Bruno, keepers of pri-
vste markets, to show cause, on Saturday.
November 4, ct II A. NJ, Why then should
not be punished for contempt of court.
Superier Criminal Court.
INDICTMENT QUAsHED.
tearing registration papers-W. j. Moore.
assistant supervisor, seveAth ward, in.
dicted November 9, 1876, for erasing name
and tearing certificate of Louis Hecklin,
October 90, 1876.
COMMISSION FILED.
The commission and 90 of Office of Hon.
Hiram r. Steele. appointed Attorney Cen
oral, October 8, vice w. II Hunt resigned,
were ordered TO be spread on the minutes.
ON TRIAL.
Robbery-Mollie Robinson, Della Aldrich,
Betsy Toby, Gabrielle Smith and Maria
Davis, charged with robbing F. E. Long,
from Nayfield, Kentucky, ON tho thirtieth
Of May, in den on Drysdes street, of $6l8.
The counsel for defense having sixty Pc
remptory challenges, challenged every
juror on tho regular panel, whom the case
Was continued until ton o'clock Saturday,
who had been out on bonds, were sent to
the Parish Prison.
First District Court.
MFORMATIoNs.
Knowingly receiving stolen property
Jules p. DAvise.
NOLLE PROsEQUI.
Wounding less than msyhsm-Brutus
Ducommin.
Petty laroeny-JOhn Toussaint, James
Msrshall.
Assault and dangerously wounding-
Smith.
Assault and battery-Ross Battle, Thomas
Mslloy.
State OK rel. Bernard Barthe W. criminal
sheriff and keeper of Parish Prson-Ha-
beas corpus. Judge Meunier, In refusing
the writ, rendered the following decision:
State of Louisiana OK rel. Berna'd BArtbe,
VI, William Pagan, Criminal Sheriff for the
parish of Orleans.-Bernsrd Barthe, the
relator herein, alleges that he is unlaw.
| fully imprisoned and deprived of his iber-
ty, under pretended commitment for con-
Il a. IS thn en- Nsnfrs
Court for the parish of Orleans, issued in
| the suit of Martin Lannes W. b. Barthe,
which suit has been instituted against the
| relstor before said Superior District Court
| to enforce penal statute of the State of
| Louisiana, to wit: IAN act to regulate the
private markets of New Orleans and for
other purposes" Martin Lannes, having
been made . party to these proceedings,
has, through his counsel, filed an excep-
| ton denying to this court the authority
| to issue writs OF hsbeas corpus. This ex-
| ceptiOp is untenable and mus. therefore.
bo dismissed, Code of Practice, article -,
Revised Statutes of 1870, section zoos. On
| it's merits this case presents the very same
| question as that which was at issue in the
case of the State Of Louisiana, ex rel. B
| MachsdO and others, vs. the criminal sheriff
| for the parish Of Orleans, wherein thie
| court expressed the opinion that the Su'
| perior District Court has no authority to
issue writs of Injunction to enforce penal
| statute of the State through the proceed
| inps instituted by private parties against
persons keeping private markets in the city
of New Orleans. Since l have rendered
| NV decision in the case of b. MachadO and
| others, Mr.. Justice Morgan, to whom an ap
| plication had been made by one Muller
Tor q writ of habeas corpus in q
\ case very similar to the case OF Machado
and to the present one, refused the writ
prayed for by Muller, entertaining, !,
| seems, an opinion adverse to that expressed
4 nv this court in the suit of Mschade and
4 others. The opinion of Mr.. Justice Morgan
is not, true it is, the opinion OF the supreme
/ Court, yet it is the opinion OF one OF tne
associate justices OF that high tribunal slG
ting in judgment, and in all conscience
can not disregard it, though not satlsneo
that my decision in the case OF Macnedo
and others is erroneous. Therefore, consio-
ering the conflict of opinions existing IN tne
case of Muller and the case OF MechadO sno
Others, the former decided by Mr.. ustice
Morgan, and the latter declded by TINS
court. and for the respect which CONSIDER
proper to yield to the opinion OF Mr.. Asso
ciste Justice Morgan, and for that consio
GRAFTON alone, l can not grant the wri'
prsyed for by the relatOr herein. hoping
that this latter will apply to hlgher tri
hunal for q final determination OF the mat
ter at issue in these proceedings. WHOM
| for some time have caused some excitement
| in certain classes of the community. IL II
therefore ordered and decreed that the RUE
| be discharged, the relator paying costs o.
these proceedings.