The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-04-22

wounding less than mayhem and as
sault with II dangerous weapon-the
jury found tho defendant guilty on the
second count, and were unable to agree
upon the other.
Fourth District Court.
Hon. b. Il. Lynch, Judge.
State of Louisiana ex rel John ID.
Rouse vs.. Recorder Of Mortgages ct al.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Josephine Johnson VS.. Clark Il Mea-
der and American Life Insurance Com
pany. Judgment in favor of plaintiff
and against the defendants, Clark q
Meader, for the sum OF 1869 and costs
Of suit. The petition and demand OF
plaintiff as against the American Life
Insurance Company is dismissed.
superior District Court.
Hon. Jacob Hawkins, Judge.
Eugene Soube has filed petition In
this court praying that IA writ OF injunc-
ton issue restraining the Mayor and
Metropolitan Police OF the city OF New
Orleans from closing the Pacific coffee
house, which he owns ut No. 1872
Charities street. He alleges that he has
obtained the requisite resident consent
for the same, that he is willing TO pay
the legitimate tax due tho city under
the revenue laws; but is unable TO pay
more and denies the right OF said city
TO claim and exact more than the law
entities 1t to. He also AYERS that the
sum OF $3.50 is excessive, illegal, and not
the uniform rate of taxation. The in
junction has issued upon bond OF $500.
L. Tharp, attorney.
The case Of Thompson vs.. Urban, for
the possession Of the assessors books
Of the Fourth District, was before this
court to-day, but was not decided.
superior criminal Cuurt.
Several parties plead guilty to carry
ing concealed weapons and were sem
fenced to thirty days in the Parish
Prison.
State vs.. John r. Barrett, Jr., charged
with an attempt TO bride public officer,
and also in another Indictment with
carving concealed weapons.
Rule taken on sheriff to show cause
why he should not accept certain
bondsman offered by the defendant.
Rule fixed for Saturday.
State OF Louisiana vs.. James ). Pres
tidge. The following challenge was filed
to the array Of Grand Jurors by whom
the indictment was found
State OF Louisiana VS.. James s. Pres
tidge- Superior Criminal Court for the
parish of Decentralization for muir
der.-And the said James s. Prestdge.
in his own proper person, now cometh
said indictment read, both in person
and by his counsel, begs leave to chal-
lenge the whole array OF grand jurors
by whom the Indictment herein was
found, on the following grounds, viz:
/. Because he says that the yenire of
Jurors from which the Grand Jurors by
whom this Indictment was found were
selected was not drawn by the Jury
Commissioners and Criminal Sheriff at
the time designated by law; that where
as it is provided in section of the act
No. 1874, OF 1874. ten days be-
fore the expiration of every month in
which the said Superior Criminal Court
shall hold its session, the said commits
sioners, together with the Criminal
Sheriff, shall proceed to draw from the
box or wheel not less than forty-eight
names, and the persons whose names
shall be drawn shall constitute the
petit jury for the month of session of
the court, succeeding such drawing
provided, that whenever it becomes
necessary to form Grand Jury by the
said Superior Criminal Court, it shall be
the duty of the Commissioners and
Sheriff to draw from said box or wheel
not less than seventy names, and out Of
the persons whose names shall so be
drawn, and appearing in court. the
Judge of said Superior Criminal Court
shall select the Grand Jury ="
Yet, in truth, and in fact, the Jury Com
missioners, together with the Criminal
> Sheriff, did not draw the names from
the box or wheel ten days before the
expiration Of the month in which the
said Superior Criminal Court held its
session, but did draw them on the 2ith
of March, A. d. 1876.
2. Because he says that the list Of per
sons from whom the Grand Jury were
selected by the Judgesof this Honorable
Court was not list of persons selected
iimpartially from the citizens Of the par
ish of Orleans having the qualifications
requisite to register as voters as re-
quired by section five Of act 124 Of the
acts Of 1874, but was a list of persons re-
siding in five out of seven municipal
districts of the city of New Orleans, to-
wit:
The First, Second, Third, Fourth and
Fifth Municipal,D Districts land the seven
''citiZens of the parish of Orleans having
the qualifications requisite to register
as voters" whose names appeared on
the venire drawn as above by the jury
Commissioners and Criminal Sheriff,
to-wit:
VIM. Cooper, D. NJ. Hollingsworth.
Charles Cross, J. E. Vose. H. J. Mullan.
Jno. B. Press and VIM. Nides, were set
aside by the Court as exempt on the
ground that they resided in the Sixth or
Seventh Municipal Districts of the city
Of New Orleans and parish Of Orleans.
3. Because he says that the names OF
persons which were placed in the box
or wheel from which the venire of Jurors
was drawn by the Jury Commissioners
and Criminal Sheriff, from which the
Grand Jurors, who found the Indictment
herein were selected, were not selected
impartially from the citizens from the
parish Of Orleans having the qual:ica-
tons requisite to register as voters"
by the Jury Commissioners as required
by section = Of act No. 1874 of the acts of
1874, but that two hundred of the names
placed in the box or wheel by said Jury
Commissioners during the month of
March, A. d. 1876, from which box or
wheel the venire of jurors from which
the Grand Jurors who found the indict-
ment herein were selected) was drawn,
were furnished to said Jury Commits
sioners by Lionel Adams, deputy clerk
OF the Superior Criminal Court, for the
parish of Orleans, and were not Sc
lected by said Jury Commissioners at
all, and this he is ready to verify.
Wherefore he prays that this his chal-
lenge to the array of Grand Jurors by
whom the indictment herein was found.
be sustained; that the panel of said
Grand Jurors be quashed and set aside
that the INDIGNANT horaip bo ovocboI