The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-08-09
THE COURTS.
Third District Court.

The following reasons for judgment was deliv-
cred yesterday by Judge Monroe, 10 the case of
the State ex rel. Bonnefon VS.. the First Justice
of the Peace:
This il an application for writ of prohibition
to restrain the First Justice OF the Peace from
further proee ediDg in the matter Of Mrs. Balles-
ter va. relator.
In the suit referred to the plaintiff sued for
possession OF leased premises. Judgment was
rendered in her favor in presence OF all parties,
June 8, 1877; notice Of judgment was served
June IL. On the 18th motion for new trial
was made returnable June 10TH On that day
the motion was continued TO the 2lst In the
meantime, 10Th OF June, bond Was filed by de-
fendaut, and suspensve appesl granted by the
Justice, which, on motion OF defendants counsel,
was dismissed June %. 1877.
The grounds OF application for the writ OF pro-
hbit1on are that the appeal bond was cond-
ttonal as the law requires, and was filed within.
the legal delay, and that tho appeal was i'm
properly dismissed.
The defendant in this proceeding denies that
the bond was fled on the appeal applied for in
time to entitle relator to the appeal, and he fur
ther denies that the bond is such as the law re-
quires. and that the surety is solvent, and AYERS
that there was no error in the Judgment dismiss
ing the appeal. The only point insfassd upon in
this court is that the appeal was not applled for
and the bond was Lot filed within the delay pro-
vided by law.
Concerning the time within which the appeal
shall be taken, art. 1i3i @. P. provides that the
motion for appeal shall be taken within three
viding In general terms for appeals which may be
taken within twelve months, provides for the
parish Of Orleans that it be done after the ex-
piratons Of the judicial days from the rendering OF
the judgment and its notification to the party
cast. See also @. p 1139-
twill thus be seen that the Code of Practice
provides in express terms that no appeal from
the Judgment of the justice OF the peace shall
stay execution unless taken within three days
after the judgment or its notification las the
may be), and in the parish of Orleans, that no
appeal shall be allowed unless taken within ten
judicial days. There Is no exception TO this rule
contained in the Code, and the curious student
may search this law in vain for any provision
concerning motions for new trials.
Turning to the Revised Statutes OF 1879 we
find section 2008 contains q mere provision 80
to the time within which an appeal may be al
lowed, as is contained in the proviso in article
1888, O. p, and the same prohibition, to wit:
That no appeal shall be allowed after ten judi
cial days. See also sections 2081-2088. This
last section contains the only reference which ,
is to be found the subject OF applications
for new trials before Justices OF the Peace. and
there is nothing in 1t when considered In con-
nection with the article of the Code OF Practice A
and with the other provision: OF the Revised
Statutes already quoted, that justify the infer
ence that it WAS intended to extend the time
within which appeals may be taken 30 as TO /
stay execution.
Even if the Revised Statutes contained an ex-
press provision TO the effect that appeal should
stay execution, ii taken after the expiration OF
the three days provided for by the Code of Prac-
tce, provided motion for q new trial had been +
made within said three days, it ia difficult to per-
ceve how the courts could give effect TO such
clause, since it would be in direct conflict With r
the provisions OF the Code of Practice, ane |.
would therefore be within the meaning OF sector
1892, Revised Statutes, which provides that II i
such cases the Code must govern. n
The difficulty, however, does not present lteeI n
since the right to apply for new trial, IKE tn
right to take suspensive appeal Is limited U y
the three days mentioned in the Code. ts
For these reasons the writ herein issued mus y
be dismissed ct the costs Of the relator. III
sixth District Court. In
In the case OF Importers Bondedsc.
house. the state OF Louisiana ex rel. ~ .f0t
Bermudez va. Fl. Tremoulet ct al, wkOecfS
lator prayed that G. T. Dugazon and Others ..
prohibited from organizing and acting as dIrecto o.
Of the Importers Bonded Warehouse, and that q
writ of mandamus issue to II. Tremoulet, q ~
president OF said company, to order another ee'
ton OF directors for said company, ct winch no. 90
Of said perssns-Ferguson and others-shaH "
candidates, Judge Rghtor has ordered that t,
mandamus applied for by relator Dc refused, ar
that the restraining order granted be annult i
and rescinded, relator to pay COSTS s.
Ed. Ranquetat vs.. Widow g. rournade, Mo 9TH
chants Mutual Insurance Company garn1shf "
in the matter Of the traverse to answers G.
garnishee. Judgment IN IaVor OF merc MAJ;
Mutual Insurance Company, garnlshee, reJe ices
ing plaintiffs demand with costs OF suit. on
Victor Iuron w. Oscar Daspit.-Rule for EST
trial discharged. NE HS
panv,-Rdle for rev trial discharged. s .hl
A. Rochereau vs. B. Tibier city OF New Orle Az US
intsryenor. Judgment in favor Of city of Fils
fendant for license as wholesale liquor dealer. at.