The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-02-10
Tire INTEREST TAX.
NeWman's Application for Man
damus and Prohibition Denied
by the Supreme Court.

A w,i, ba aeen by the following or'nlon de-
llyered Yesterday by MIR. Justice white. the su-
s,rep,e court declines 10 Interfere At present
With the CONTROVERSY which has arisen as TO the
eetination under article OF the constitutional
.1aht o,l,nanna Of 1879 1T 1.-THE taxes collected to
,raot t,,e ,ntarest coupons az the consolidated
boe5s falling due January |, 1880
NJ. TJs.. state ey rel Iedore Nawman, sr,,
y. HI tiba I,,ipa n lie Histb District Court,
Hha reJato, rapres enting himself to be the
hnidar and owner eff warrants drawn against
tie general fund amounting, t. az ,oon hed =
Ron against The Treasurer end Auditnr,.,nf
inandamns against The Auditor to compel hin,
70 place " TIN credit q TN general me- i frn'
H. w sa@s' y the telatof with p,lvi
sss oyer Il. Y" s., est sssaas asnf t.
paying any portion OF the cum 10 be trans.
lerrea e the general inpd e any et be-
siter ane a nrpeaeaines, Tie issuance tie man
6a,nus an j he psfeatuatinn Of the tninnn''nn;
The .ayer,nents nnen which the right tp feiie'
was founded were that the warrants q IA III, re,
latet had been presented for payment a,i1 hsh
been refused on account Of want ot tnaus
when ~ eenaeunenee OF article u w e9ns .,
ury the sum VI s2,s.nno applicable 70 the nay
snent Of the, general sspenses % We aesarn .,
fund, against which the warrants Of the teasor
A rule t,ist and preliminary Injunction Issued
on the niueteenh Of January, the rule having
i,aen mn,ie ,aturnahe On the twenty second,
ana pn the twenty third dactee was rendered
making he alternative rule absolute ~, anh r ,h
tha i1iing Vi All intervention. The !ssue npv BE-
fore us ctsyer nor wes E, nus he
vacating o. the order granting the new trial
sna u prshhtlnn e ntsyant Ne e tti IA q hs a.
tpntjpa tho aimnIn question SS. Nno
M .s Ss II IL ~ \, wv
ture aud before the larsine d three DAYS, q h!s
m ha e gr III
we are clearly not now called nron 70 express
any ppinion az e. The correctness q the The ,ndg,,
the power 'esisea ii grant new trial i Il
wholly immaterie what reason operated to
bring about the esefniee Of the power.
tisn Of the three DAYS allowed tor RE
adjudication. for . new trial +; for the
q the t1in AMI anti a TIE , thses
Mns. az spfg5 ~ Gyss f1se,s
raa eli IL open FIR new trial The court may order
to that end Ii liz own motion. q. 7, s.T.
These elementary rropesit!ons we take az
not disputed In the brief 81 counsel which
their application BIZ ccntendire that The iudg.
snent on the menaamus being summary did
not require the three days to make II detinttive
and therefore II became final on tta n nhit!cn
pcneadhe The correctness of the proposition,
for the pnrpesea OF the case only. the Judgment
below not only issuad the mandamhs, but !,
likewise percetnateh the Injunction, n which
laat respect 1t waa clearly q iai1nttive Judgment,
ae to which the delays for a new trial were I'M
doubtedy requisite.
There was one Judgment not two and the
correction VI error lii any portion rendered
new trial necessary as TO the judgment In ite
entirety. Whipple va. Har.zberper, II A, AIS
But We 40 not onneede that a Judgment On
mandamus II such decree AZ % hacCma hnal
on lite rendition. Tint It ta a flnel Judgment has
been determined. "a A. iaa. The mere fact
that the proceeding Ia summary aoaa not make
the Judgment III which the proceeding enlmi-
mated SUMMARY decree. In the ahaenee Of poe-
tive provision Of law we would he without AN
thoritY for treating a Anal judgment rendered
Ill a tilaniamu7 proceeding differently from
other Anal judgments.
The ruiea are discharged aud the writs re-
flead at the coat 0f relatNr