New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-07-25
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, JULY "a, 1876.
Superior DIetrlct Court.

Superior District Court.
City OF New Orleans VS.. knall ct al
Rule for contempt for carrying on business
without license dismissed, the defendants
having ceased to do business.
C. 3. White We. Board Of Health.-Rule
to dissolve writ OF sequestration referred to
merits.
George &. NorcrGas vs.. Locke ct al-Sults
tor possession of property purchased at tax
sales. The suits were filed before the court
adjourned. In order to avoide the difficulty
presented, that the court can not decide a
petitOry action in vacation, the plaintiff
amended by asking only the possession.
Taken under Amusement.
State ex rel. Michael Carvin vs.. Mayor
and Administrators of New Orleans.-Re-
lator holds $4,000 wharf bonds, and asked
that the city be restrained from passing the
ordinance relieving Eilermen, the wharf
lessee, from the payment of his bonds and
that he be compelled to fulfill his contract.
On rule to dissolve Injunction The wharf
bonds in question are, in my opinion, valid,
They were issued for legitimate and most
important municipal object, to wit: the
construction and repairs of the whacyes
and levees of the city of New Orleans, and
their emission was authorized by section
forty seven of the city charter. Carvin is
the holder of five of those bonds, received
by him for valuable consideration. He
has a vested right to be paid their amount
out of the revenues derived from wharf
and levee dues under his contract with the
city. The proposed ordinance Of June p =,
1876. the passage of which is hereby en-
joined, would, if passed, Impair vested
rights of the plaintiff as owner and holder
of said bonds. Under the circumstances
the Injunction herein was necessary and
was authorized by law.
az tho r,la herein taken To disAolye the
injunction be discharged, On rule for per
emptory mandamus, Henry Ellerman, leg
see, having failed to comply with the con-
dition of his lease of the Wharves, and such
failure being detrimental to the city of New
Orleans, as well as to the relator, Carvin, it
was and is the ministerial duty Of the re-
spOndents to take the proper legal measures
against said Ellerman, by declaring the
contract at an end and instltuting pro-
ceedngs against him and his sureties for
all the damages caused by his default, or
by reselling his rights, after no less than
ten days advertisement in the official news
paper, and holding the said defaultin g
party and his suritiss liable for the differ
ence in price, and for any other damages
sustained. A mandamus will lie to compel
respondent to perform this duty. :! A,
ioS.
1t is therefore ordered that the man
damus herein be made peremptory.
John Smith and fifty others vs.. B. NJ.
Turnbull, Administrator OF Commerce OF
New Orleans She plaintiffs, private mar
ket men, filed their petition August IL, 1877 1,
alleging act No. 81 of 1874, the market bill,
only referred to private markets established
after its passage, but defendant made no
distinction. The following order was issued
August Il, 1874. by Judge Hawkins to Ad-
ministrator Turnbuli, G. G. Antoine, presi
dent, and A. S. Badger, Superintendent of
Metropolitan Police, on bond of $3.50:
You are hereby commanded, enioined
and restrained. in the name of the State OF
Louisiana and of the Superior Distric.
Court for the parish of Orleans, from clos
ing the establishment of plaintiff and from
interfering with the business ct plaintiff in
any manner whatever; aud you are so en-
Joined and until the further order OF this
honorable court"
On rule to dissolve this Injunction,
Judge Lynch decided as follows:
Act No. 81 Of the session of the Legisla-
ture of ISL 1, clearly prohibits the carrying
on or conducting the business Of vending
fresh meat, fresh fish, poultry, etc. within
twelve squares Of any public market IN the
corporate limits OF the city of New Orleans
The Supreme Court, in the case of the city
of New Orleans vs. James Stafford, decided
that the act aforesaid was not IN conflict
with the constitution, and therefore is az
binding on the citizen as any other law on
statute book.
1t is admitted that the plaintiffs in the
above numbered suits respectively are con
Quoting the business of vending fresh
meat. etc within twelve squares Of mar
kets owned by the city OF New Orleans
They are therefore engaged in a business o!
traffic which the law Las reprobated and
p< no linv-cH fhc
aid of the writ OF injunction the better tC
enable them to violate the law and prevent
it's enforcement by the constituted authori
ties.
1t il therefore ordered that the rule herein
taken May ), 1873 by the defendants il
each Of the above suits he made absolute
so far as that the in junction be dissolved al
plaintiffs costs; and further. that the said
rule, SO far as it seeks to recover for the
defendants 500 as attorneys fees, be dis
charged.
An appeal was allowed.
First District Court.
Thirty six jurors are ordered for August
Fourth District Court.
E. C. Billings VS.. Green, Bofinger IL Co
Judgment by confession for $4,000.
Judge Campbell rendered the following
decision.
Taylor VS.. John Q. A. Fellows.-In this
case the exception to the jurisdiction Of
the court is we'll taken.
| have examined carefully the acts No
II o. 1874 and No. 4j of 1876, and l find
nothing in the latter which conflicts with
the constitution. | hold that act No, II OF
1874 did not transfer the seventh municipal
district of the city OF New Orleans
from the second judicial district. Neither
did the act OF 1870 transfer the sixth
municipal district from the second judicial
district. Thee acts annexed the sixth and
seventh municipal districts TO New Orleans
for municipal purposes.
the constitution, article eighty three,
leaves the General Assembly vested with
the fullest and most unlimited powers, in
the matter OF creating district c9ults tor
the parish OF Orleans
The power of the General Assembly Is
Only restricted ia the matter of the jurls-
diction OF particular courts. Act No. ID OF
1876 reiterates and interprets the inten
ton of the General Assembly as set forth
in section two of article seventy-one OF
1874. 1t declares its intention to be, to
make the sixth and seventh municipal dis
tricts part Of the city of New Orleans fol
all municipal purposes, but to leave them
part of the second judicial district for ali
judicial purposes.
l see nothing in the constitution opposed
to this exercise OF legislative power.
The exception is sustained.