The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-05

THF
the trick put upon them by the provision in
the law Of 1871, aet No. 60 .,,a au.u,,. = ..or
worth quoting. 1t ID to be found in the Coun-
eli proceedings Of April %, 1878. Mr.. Lacey
writes: ''The property In said fourth drain
ing district has been In no manner improved,
protected or increased IN value by any work
protection levee is built and connected with
the lake shore levee. 1t Is, therefore, inequit-
able to demand o tax from the property OF
said drainage district until the work for the
the duty Of the Council to meet these war
rants out OF assessments due on lands already
improved by drainage, rather than by fore
ing collections on lands which will not be i'm.
proved by drainage for many years TO come.
AZ the fourth drainage districts 10 worse r's
condition than 1t was when the above able
opinion. was given, and as there Is q
principle in law that an agreement
without a consideration cannot be en-
forced, I know that Mr.. Lacey. will
agree with me that the $4,000 extorted from
the Ursulines Convent for work never intend
ed to be done was In accordance with the prin-
ciples established by John Law and Dick Tur-
pin many years ago. But hear me out, MI.
Lacey, for will give you documents TO d.
gest equally as strong as your able opinion
Just quoted.
The city was anxious to be rid Of VanNor-
den, and his system OF drainage, for the cost
was already three millions, with nothing done
BY ordinance No. $3.50, May 2e, 1876, authority
Mexican Gulf Ship Canal Company or
transferee Wan Norden) for the full settle
ment of all claims and damages, and to pro-
cure the absolute sale, REIMBURSEMENT and
transfer to TIE city q New Orleans OF W. GIL
in favor OF the said canal and transferee, un-
der and by virtue of act No. 80, 1871, and all
other acts Of the Legislature, (all previous
acts to No. 30 were repealed by the passage q
that one) and ordinances OF the City Council.
The conditions were $500, 600 in drainage war
rants, the city to aid in the collection and in
demnify Van NOrden against all damages LII
ever city was badly sold it was New Orleans
In the passage Of ordinance No. 1889, and the
1t. Who advised the authorities In the matter
1 am not able to say, but Frank Jonas was
not party to 1T.
It was well known that for previous years
| there was no such institution as the Mexican
Gulf Ship Island Company, although an or
ganization was kept up with J. Matthews,
Jr., president, and s. d. Moody, secretary,
but they had nothing to represent; the entire
property was pledged to the State Tor the
bonds and interest and the company lnsol-
United States Marshal, February 8, 1872, to
Philip s. Lowell for $500: afterwards to
Frank Wheaton for about $4,000, and who Is
now In possession. Van NOrden had nothing
to transfer, and, therefore, his sale to the
city was illegal. Let the following judg-
ments tell the tale:
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
James "A. Willard vs.. Mississippi and Mexi-
can Gulf Canal Company.-PetitiOn No. 1915,
filed July 20, 1878; judgment January II, 1877.
Judgment decreeIng a forfeiture OF the char
ter Of the company, and appointing Tobias
MFG to nffaat q
liquidation Of its affairs. Judgment final. N
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
Alfred Marchand VS.. w. Van Norden and
Palmer, No. 1905, filed September 8, 1873.
Charges that the said company Canal, in
order to fraudulently cover Its property from
its creditors, etc, did fraudulently make a
transfer to one Van Norden, on the twenty
Hero Jr., Transferring dredge and tlatboats,
mules, wagons, horses, steam tug, etc. Trans
fer set aside and decreed to be the property
OF the Canal Company, and subject to the
payment of its debts. Judgment rendered
June %, 1877, Van Norden to pay costs on ap-
peal.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
James A. Willard vs.. w. Van Norden, No.
4s46 Filed July 3d. 1873. Judgment rem
dered January %, 1875 against Van Norden
setting aside the acts Of transfer before A.
Hero, Jr.,, viz: May %, 1872, November %,
| 1872, and the act OF agreement November 23,
| 1872, and decreeing all the property referred
to In the acts, as we'll as all the franchises,
| to belong to the Mississippi and Mexican
Gulf Ship Canal Company, and subject to the
payment Of Its debts, and prohibits the
| Mayor, Administrators and other officers
| from delivering to Van Norden or any OF his
| agents or assigns, any certificate or cash
warrants or bills, or other property or evi-
dence OF debt or bonds, etc, In reference to
act No. 80, 1871. Van Norden to pay all costs
| on appeal.
Now it strikes me that the Mayor and Ad-
ministrators are assuming responsibility in
authorizing prosecution Of these drainage
claims. The sheriff also will be in the same
box. Suppose the two last judgme tents to be
affirmed hs the Supreme Court, who then
will refund the money! not Van Norden nor
the city, as payments to either party would
be final s. HOWELL.