The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-08-06

defendant would neglect to keep 1t lii proper
repair + 70 ,ne interest -, ~. state - r.co.r
the property, whether at the expiration of the
lease OF by the Judgment which 1t demands In
this case, In the best condition and repair
possible. 1T is the interest OF the succession
OF Taylor TO keep it in such condition and re-
pair as well i'm order to increase the revenues
by affordlng the requisite accommodation to
the public and inviting the use Of the canal
and the road, HIS to avoid or diminish the
claim for damages by the State caused by the
dllapldatlon and rum Of the property; and
the State cannot justly complain that defend
ant Or other parties III the interest OF defend
ant. are daily engaged In doing the very work
which tends 20 prevent the dilapldation ana
ruin OF the property. / should hesitate to
PENDANT In the prosecution Of this work, espe-
cially where such an order could be Of no DOS
sible advantage to the State and would inlet
certain and great pecunlary loss on the sue
eession.
On the eighteenth Of July, the day on which
the State moved to vacate the order OF the
sixteenth, allowing defendant to bond, the
State flied q supplemental and amended petit
tlon, In which 1t is alleged that Taylor had
conveyed to Duncan +. Kenner, wholly or In
part, his rights under the lease, "by virtue OF
which the said Kenner alone has had posses
sion, CONTROL management and direction of
the said canal and otner property. That the
said Kenner, appar. ntly as agent, but in
charge and conduct Of the same, and has ad-
ministered the same through his agents and
employees; that be has publicly laid claim TO
the dredKeboat, pile-driver, mules etc, at
tached to said canal, claiming ownership OF
the same and he should be
made d party"
Kenner was cited to answer this petition,
but 1t was not sworn to nor was any new Of
der or writ of saguestration demanded SO far
as the record shows.
There Ia room for grave doubt az 70 the
right of plaintiff to sue party not In pos
session, aud In that suit to cause seuuestra-
property seized and taken into legal custody
which confessedly at the institution OF the
suit was In the possession OF another person
alone who was not party to the suit, nor TO
the orr or, nor to the writ, and who publicly
claimed the ownership OF part OF the proper |
ty. The allegations OF the supplemental and
amended petition would have made the Sc |
questration wrongful but for the admission Of
the executor that Tavlor's succession was III |
possession OF and claimed the right to bond |
the canal and the shell road. This admission, |
however, IN no manner legalizes the seques- |
tration Of the other property, Ut which Ken |
nef was Ia possession, claiming TO be the !
owner.
On 4 proper affidavit upon the supplemental |
and amended petition, the State might be en-
Titled to seguester the property the owner
ship Of which 10 publicly claimed by Kenner;
but IaylOr'S succession asserts no claim to
lIllS pIbpSIbf, tlu III WINS liz HIfJuuiNG w bHf
State that the experts and the court fixed the
amount of the bond with reference to the fact |
that the succession Of Taylor claimed the
of none of the property Of which
kenner publicly claimed to be the owner.
The estimation made by the experts isupon
the hypothesis that defendant will neglect
his duty and disregard the obligations OF the
lease. The judicial admission llade by the
State, In the motion OF the twelfth of July. Is
not consistent with this theory, and 1t Is Ger |
tain that the canal must be kept In u naviga-
BILE condition and afford suitable means for
the receiving and discharging Of cargoes. or
it cannot yield revenues.
The estimation also proceeds on the as
sumption that the defendant will continue in
possession for the entire nnexpired term OF
the lease Is this prObabe2 The State is q
preferred sutor in all its courts It demands
the nulity Of the lease ID This case on the
ground that the terms and conditions have been
1t can compel the defendants. all Of
whom have been cited, to plead to the merits
within u lew days after the beginning Of the
term in November, and it can demand o
speedy trial by preference. In case Of
hearing in the Supreme Court, and the
defense would fluid 1t difficult to pro
tract the litigation beyond the ensuing term.
The probability is, therefore, that Ii the State
makes out q case authorizing the annulling of
the lease, the possession under the lease will
within less than a year The fix
Ing Of the bond on the hypothesis that the
possession uiitier lhe lease ana the receipt OF
Ille revenues ny tne succession WIN commune
piration Of the fifteen years. Ia upon the most
'ay " i,s ntsls foi Ine Ts.ce. .,,
Ina n'sm1 - app1ai - pi1taous, IT, TIL
= poasusnloii i, - Is ,ilM iespstls
seeks to recover property adversely held to
ass - rhe l ~ CUSTODY ~ ie VIII %
NJ an 10 us7e wv 80 VIM W
'.,bt Il o tta pdafaant f
~ Nh t,,;t o, ~ sud
s p,opo..y pot WIN Rooa aliu sullg1ene
,E.t a 4o w ~
~ u'' hn a ~" aatni,, ~ wy
= nne ~ u.,,, auIu'y IL -
,',d ~ i IA that ,.inti,T T. h -
-, WHY - =. GIN 80. ~ - ss..ps
- ~ iha hond ~ III 81 IS
ara - thn ~ ~ tha ~ e RtaaC
frn, - 49, sHa1 ~ ~
III "a INA EanIi a ~ ha
~ ~ ~ oo -, WIN enit.p,e .lle piai
and ~ i''sv ~ aSu ,r io ne