The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-10-24
Get your kid gloves at Kreeger's.

Get your kid gloves at Kreeger's.
THE COURTs.
second District Court.
SUGGESTIONS OPENED.
SUGGESTIONS Of Martin Friedrich. Bernard Ryan
Ooffey, Eeigfried Droste and David McUoard.
Third District Court.
John Henderson We. city of New Orleans.-In
this case Warner Van Norden filed an interven
ton, joining the CITY, and PRAYING that the in
junction sued out By the plaintiff be dismissed.
Patrick Irwin vs. city OF New Orleans.--Inter-
vention Of the same nature as In the foregoing
case filed by Van Norden.
sixth District Court.
New Orleans Canal and Banking Company Va.
city OF New Orieans.--Warner Van Norden inter-
venes, joining the city and asking The dismissal
Of plaintiffs suit.
jean Otapus We. Pierre Pujol-On the LIST OF
September lssl the defendant Ia the above case
made affidavit against the plaintiff and caused
his arrest for embezz'ement OF the sum OF $1,000,
realized on q warrant Entrusted TO him for eollec.
ton by defendant. On October 20 plaintiff had .
preliminary examination on this charge before
The Second Recorder and was discharged. He
now briggs suit against Pnjol Of damages in the
sum vi 900.
Petitioner ayers that said Pierre Poniol is liable
to him in damages to the sum OF $4,000 for libel
false inn risonment aud malicious prosecution;
that said Pierre Pujol acted arbitrarily ia max
ing said affidavit; thst his object In the matter
was not to a,piy for 3 bona tide investigation OF
the charge OF acknowledgements, but to have recourse
to the criminal prosecution, in order, by the ter
ror thereof, to compel petitioner to pay said
Pujol tho claim Of ,2l25.
Paul Trevigne vs.. school Board.-In this case
IT 70 Rightor read the folio wing decision, eis-
solving the injunction sued out by plaintiff:
Paul Ireyigne Vi. b5hool Board ct a.-The
plant Fl, q CITIZEN Of the Uoited States and OF
LpulsiaDa, resident In his city, Of which he ls a
native, AYERS that he is a colOred man OF African
descent and origin; that he is . married man, has
mpor now under his tutelage OF schoolsble
age; that he is the owner Of real and personal
property In the CITY, upon which he pays taxes.
He then IeciIes the fourteenth amendment of the
constitution Of the United. States, which
rallied in the Uoited States and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and OF the State wherein they
/, O. ide. No State shal make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
the second article of the constitution of Louis
lana, which declares that .'ail persons. without
regard to race, color or previous condition, born
or naturslized in the United States and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof and residents of this
state one year, are citizens. They shall enjoy
The same civil, political and public rights and
PRIVILEGES, and be subject to the same pains and
penalties"
He then recites article 1856 Of the State consti |
tuition, which declares that call children of tbis
State between the ages of six and twenty. one
shall be admitted to the pubic schools or other
institutions OF learning SD tanned or established
by the state, in common, without distinction of |
ace, color or previous connition. There shall be
no separate schools or institutions Of learning e.
blshed exclusively for any race by the State of
Louisiana" Article 1876 provides that "to mn |
licipal corporation shall make any rules or re en-
atlons contrary to the spirit and intention of ar
tnln Artsa l-
ion shall be equal and uniform throughout |
be State" Plaintiff then proceeds TO show
n substance that VIM. O. Rogers, Superin endent |
u the Public Schools of New Orleans, by the |
.dvice and under the direction Of the s,hool |
'oard of the city, as evidenced by the adoption
i certain resolutions offered by Archibald
Mitchell. has divided and separated the public
ebools OF the city into schools exclusively for
White children and schools exclusively for col
red chldren, said division and separation being
orphaned OF as arbitrary, without authority Of
w, and Wolative OF the constitutions OF the
Jnited States, Of the State of Louisiana and of
he laws thereof. and as working an irreparable
pury to the pet toner and his son, as well as to
tends to and does degrade them 90 eiti-
ens by discriminating against them on
cconnt OF color or race. He further sets forth
nat ne IS man OF education and refinement, and
.om shls TACT, without considering others, he is
'repsrably injured in the person Of his son, by
ne Off; isl acts OF the board and of William o.
'ogers, which detract from their stains IA citi.
ems aud consign them to the contempt of their
blow men in this community and elsewhere.
nat beng equals before the law. this equality
rule is taken to dissolve the injunction which
sued at the instance above set forth on substan-
ally two grounds: |
l. That the petition discloses no ipiury To
lalntlf and no cause OF action.
=: Ihat the process Of injunction u.s. under the
laintlf's allegations, Intellectual and impossible
! execution for as much as it prohibits the doing
. that which mad been already done at the date
The issuance Of the mandate.
lOur Code OF Practice, article Is. provides that
an action can only be brought by one having q
'al and actual interest which he pursues. but az
ION as that interest arises he may bring his &C.
On, " ls not sufficient that an unlawful act
iaii nave been done to confer on an individual
le right OF complaining to the COURTS he must
low resulting wrong inflicted upon himself
right violated to his personal detriment.
mong the rules adopted by the school Board for
ty is one tNo. AZ, chapter ~ passed in conform
with sections 81 and 80 of act No. Is, Statutes
lon' and which prsscribes that pupils
must st. attend ,ths the school established
icy reside" This rule il just and reasonable
le, and clearly within the granted powers OF the
,ard. It's lawfulness has not been questioned.
'r has it been complained Of as injurious 10 the
aintif. Plaintiffs only "real and actual int
frequenting the public schools Of the
ocal school district in which he resides" What
'er violation of right may be threatened or exc
ted in other districts can intlict no personal
jury upon him, and an appeal to the courts for
dress in those localities belongs either to the
nstitu ed authorities or to the individuals who |
~ have been aggrieved. It lie clear therefore. !
'yond the possibility Of doubt, that the in
notion, SO far as 1t embraces in the scope OF ite
hibition upon the school board any portion Of
% territory Of New Orleans other than tha die.
let Of PLAINTIFF residence, cannot stand ana
ust be dissolved for be- IS IN individual can | /
nplain only q tho establishment II sepaxate