The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1880-01-17
District Court.

District Court.
The Business Or thePsst week Important
Judgments Rendered Against
the Town and Parish.
The term of District Court still holds
on, and the attorneys are making per-
sistent effort to clear the docket order
that opportunity may b. given for ap-
peals to the Supreme and Circuit Courts
n all cases whore it is desired to apply
to the courts of last resort for decisions.
Sessions have been held every day this
week and judgments have been rendered
in the following cases:
C.Kline vs. No. 1889, the parish of As
cension; Boulanger ct ais. garnishees !;
judgment in favor Of plaintiff sustaining
garnishee process motion for new trial
overruled and suspensive appeal granted
to the Supreme Court on bond of $50.
As this case involves very interesting
questionable seizure of revenues arising
from the rental Of parish lots-we shall
publish an extract from the Judgment in
next issue of the CHIEF.
Lucy Washington IT., rs. No. 1895,
Who's. c. Butler, mar; Judgment in favor
of plaintiff, decreeing separation from
bed and board and dissolution Of the
community Of acquets and gains former
ly existing between the parties. Injunc-
ton restraining defendant from dispos
ingof any Of the community property
perpetuated, and question as to whether
said property shall hereafter be held in
community or separately to be submit
ted to arbitrators.
La. Equitable Life ms. Co. %. No. 1874,
just Co,nes-third opposition Of the in
surance company; Judgment in favor Of
defendant, dismissing third opposition,
was rendered, but a new trial was sub
sequently granted.
Owing to the Importance Of the litiga-
ton and the interest which all citizens
of our town will feel in the matter, we
append full text of the reasons in .judg
ment given by Judge Dutfel III four Of
the suits instituted against the town Of
Donaldsonviile by holders of console
dated bonds issued in 1866. There were
six of these suits prosecuted in the Dis
trict Court, two Of which-entitled Chas.
A. johnson and Felix Braud rs. the town
of Donaldsonville-wer decided on the
18th of Decemberin favor OF plaintiffs.
The Judges opinion with reference to
the four remaining suits was rendered in
the words and figures following:
State Of Louisiana, parish of Ascension,
Fourth Judicial District Court there
of-Victor Maurin No. 1922, Augus-
tin Bercegeay (No. 1843), Elodie Ter
rio, Widow Vilcor Dugas NO 1544),
and Justinien Oubre mo. 1645), all
Of said plaintiffs Is. The Town Of
DOnaldsonviile, defendant in all of
the four suits.
The defense in each one Of the above
cases is almost identically the same, and
to save time aud reduce the volume of
the records we will proceed to give orr
reasons for the judgments which we are
about to sign in each case.
These plaintiffs all hold bonds of de-
fendant dated 3rd April, 1866, payable
ten years after date, with interest, etc.
Defendant, in each case, pleads as fol
lows, viz:
l. That the resolution Of 2Oth March,
1866, of the Town Council is unconstitu-
tional, i'll not being equal and uniform,
in that it levied u tax OH real estate
alone. m."
The 18th section Of the act Of 1886, in
cooperating the town, gives the right to
the Council to discriminate as to the OBJ
jects of taxation. So the Council did not
Overstep it's charter.
Does such All ordinance, although
within its charter, violate tho Constitu-
ton This question, under similar Or
dinances of other corporations, has been
discussed ad nauseans. The earliest de-
cisions established the principle that this
provision Of equality and uniformity of
taxation did not apply to municipalities,
and 50 it has been held down to 1854.
(See 2 A. 1872; 8 A. 674; 4 "A. 548, and in
furentially by numerous other decisions. }
In the 9 A. 446, SOB, we find this juris-
prudence set aside, but to be soon re-
asserted i'll II A. 220, id. 372, id. 357, IL
a. 346, and IA A. 495-this last rendered
i'll the year 1859.
We are now referred to the 81 A. 1,
| where it is contended that the Supreme
Court decided that taxation should be
equal and uniform in municipal as we'll
as Stale cnactments. We do not consi-
J.r hot hx,< ",
in that case, as to whether corporation
could select one species Of property to be
taxed exclusively, excluding other tax
! the rate was higher in one part of the
corporation than in another, and that
section 81 Of the act Of 1852 arbitrarily
established the rolls Of 1851 as the basis
Of an assessment for all time upon which
specific annual tax was to be levied
The court said that a tax was assessed
with, ut respect to valuation, and that
one species Of property was taxed higher
than another species Of property taxed
of equal value. Notwithstanding the
apparently conflicting decision of the 81
A. p. to the former rulings since 1847
we prefer to abide by those rulings, a
the certainty of law is Of more impor.
I lance to the public than the reason Of it
The second objection is that the Coun.
Gil had no authority to assess special
tax of over $1,000 without first taking q
vote Of the people of the town thereon
Section 1st of act of incorporation.
The act of 1850, No. 1T, "grants add
tional powers" to the town, and 50 doe,
the act No. 81 Of 1855 entitled can act
granting additional powers" to it, il
! neither of which acts is there q WORD
about taking the sense of the voters t.
the issuance of -bgnds to the amount o
$4,000 and ST., CO..
Act No SO. u 1851 authorizes the issu
ance Of bonds not to exceed $25, 900, as il
the judgment Of tho Town Council tn.
interest of tho town maybe required.