New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-05-26

CULlO0 u = 1OUGGXox0, LUX AA0V0 sA0y AZ
strained the disposition of property; they
have simply enjoined' the execution of
statute looking to the enforcement OF tax.
on the ground that it is unconstitutional.
The collection Of the tax is suspended mere
~ by operation of the injunction. No
property rights can be destroyed;
and We see NO reason for bond
for damages other than the one chat
was given when the Injunction issued. We
can not say in advance of hearing Of the
cause that the Judge erred in issuing the in.
junction, or that the bond he exacted in the
case is not sufficient to cover damages re-
suItinx from the injunction. We think the
bond Of $1,000 rendered by relators was sufi.
cient, and suspeAsive appeal should have
been granted on . bond for that sum, with
good and solvent securities.
mus and prohibition herein be made per-
emptory and perpetual, and that the judge
grant relatoFs . suspensive appeal ON giving
bond in the sum Of $1,000, with good and
sufficient security, and that he fix return
day, a. required by law. See 20 A., O5, 529.
Morgan, j., dissenting. The court issued
an order to the district judge to grant the
plaintiffs suspensive appeal in ths case.
In the application for this order We we're
We declined to do. We granted the order
with the condition that the plaintiffs should
furnish bond conditioned accordicg to
law. The judge has obeyed our mandate.
He has granted the appeal. But as to the
amount of bond to be given he has post
poned action until he sh0ald be satisfied by
evidence what the amount should be.
see nothing in this of which the plaintiffs
have any cause to complain. The judge
could have fxed the bond at an arbitrary
amount. If he had the plaintiffs would
have applied to Us for relief. 50 they could
now if after hearing testimony the Judge
should fix too large an amount. In Othe.
words, the exercise of his discretion would
be subject to our review. As the case now
stands do not see why We should inter
fere. The application should be dismissed.
Howell, j., dissenting. l think the an
swer Of the Judge Q.se shows good grounds
WIN the mandamus should not be made
peremptory. The Judge has not refused to
accept Q bond and grant the appeal; but
has ouLy fixed day for hearing evidence
on the question Of injury OF damage that
may be caused or may result to appellees
oy appeal, which, upon the principles an
nounced in the cases OF State OK rel. Wal
dron W. judge Of First District Court -
Superior District Court mot reporred). he
was authorized to do, the bond, OF course,
to be drawn according to law.
James johnson, per Andrew J. Bsien, vs.
Board OF Metropolitan P0lice.-Petitioner
alleges he was elected to the Metropolitan
Police force to serve during good behavior;
that he was discharged without cause
March Is, 1869; that his pay was $lO00 q
wear, and claims &6666 SIS, balance due to
date. s.
Lehman, Abraham g. Co. vs.. New Or
leans, St. Louis and Chicago railroad
Judgment for plaintiff for $252l II.
Gest A. Atkinson vs.. acknowledgement
for $3.50 10.
euDor1or Criminal Court.
CONVICTED.
Murder-Frank Carpenter, charged with
having on the eighth of November, lSl 3.
while police officer at Algiers, shot and
killed Anderson Burrows, on Bouny. De-
tween Peters and Delaronde streets. Guilty
of msaslaughter.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Neutrality-suspicious. Jones, charged
with embezzlement of Q shovel and q rake,
pleaded guilty to petty larceny.
SENTENCED.
Petty larcsny-Gastave Jones, thirty
days Parish Prison.
Periury-John Corners, motion for new
trial.
EOLLE PROsEQUI.
In the following old cases a nolls prose
oui vas entered
Trespass and removing furniture in viola
ton of act No. II, 18TH. E. Arbo.
Perjury-Carrie Ingalls,.
Bribery and violation of act No. OF
1881. d. Levy. charged with bribery OF
Representatives Milton Jones ana HENRI
Demas, on the fourteenth and fifteenth OF
January, 1875.
| Embezzement-W. F. Duncan. charged
with embezzling $50 from Louisa Burke:
| Alex. Delgado, charged with embezzlin
$4,000 IN January, 1874, from the firm OF
Prudhomme & Co., No. 80 Magazine street
| First District Court.
CONVICTED.
Promise Lee, of breaking and entering
| etc.
| ACQUITTED.
William L;ttlefsld, assault with a dan
gerous weapon; Peter Earlyard ana Charles
Fromps, of assault and battery.