The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1884-12-06
District Court.


The Church Case Drags its Slow Lengtl
A1ong-A Removal of the Port Barro,
Land Case to the United States Circui
Court Refused.
Il The District Court resumed business Of
|, Thursday, the 4th inst, in accordance wit
Judge Duffei's order to the Sheriff to ad
journ from the Ist, the continued indisposi
ton of his honor preventing his attendance
on the earlier date. The business trans
acted up to the time of adjournment thi
evening is shown by the following synopsis
/ Adlard Landry Us. Joseph Dugas, sui
based on promissory note for $50 givea
| September %, 1850: judgments by defaul
rendered against defendant.
Succession of DIR. Albert G. Love. Judg
ment was rendered on the rule by universe
legatee to be placed in possession of tn
property, ordering that the rule be sus
tanned and made absolute; that John G
Love be recognized as universal. legatee o
the late DIR. Albert G. Love under his las
will and testament, and that said legatee b.
placed in possession of all the property ant
effects belonging to and depending upol
| the succession.
In the suit of w. w. Buford Us. Angus
Hohensee, Judge Dnffel yesterday rendered
the subioined decree oyerruling the peti
tion of plaintiff for the transfer of the cas-,
| to the United States Circuit Court at New
| Orleans:
| Plaintiff herein applies to this court for al
order transferring this suit to the proper Circul
! Court of the United States viz: the Fifth Cir
cult and Eastern District OF Louisiana. at It'll
next term to be holden in the city of New Or
| leans, in said district.
He prays that SAID suit be 80 removed because
pute under and from the United States, and
the defendant claims title adversely to him
under an alleged Spanish grant and that said
United States, and the treaty by which Spain
coded the territory of Louisiana to the United
States.
for removal shall be tled before or at the term
at which the cause could be first tried,' The
application must be mode at or before the first
be regularly set down for hearing. The petition
cannot be filled afterwards although the cause
is not in fact heard at that term. 1871, W. v.
Sisson, N. J. Eq. Ill.
against defendant on The End day of April. 1884.
The first term of this court at which said cause
could have been tried began on the list day of
September, 1884. at which term said cause
:. We find plaintiff moved for and obtained
default at this term, to-wlt: on 10th November,
1884. The present application should have
been filed or made at or before the said Septem-
Der term of the court. As the statute must be
complied with substantially, which was not
done in this case, the removal cannot be
ordered. Besides plaintiff herein has not
stated the facts and indicated the questions
arising therein which would entitle him to the
order. The mere statement that the controversy
arises under the laws of the United States and
their treaty with Spain does not comply with
the statutes and enables this court to determine
its jurisdiction. T. V.Nougues Sawyer, 17e.
For these reasons the prayer for the removal
of the said suit to said Circuit Court is refused.
President and Board Of Church Wardens
of the Congregation ofsthe. Roman Catholic
Church of Ascension Us. Right Reverend n
J. Perche, Bishop, ct ais. On Tuesday the
trial of this cause celebre was resumed.
Counsel for defendants filed motion %
strike out the testimony of Felix Leblanc,
Leon Babin, Jean Fevrier, Felix eau
threaux, ST., and DE. Jones, witnesses for
plaintiffs, on the ground Of irrelevancy.
The testimony of these witnesses to which
defendants objected touched upon the
following points:
1. The action of the Church Wardens OF the
Roman Catholic Congregation of Ascension in
the year 1874. and the act of June, 1874, before
Landry, Notary Public.
2. The acts and dolngs of defendants and the
Roman Catholic Congregation of the diocese of
New Orleans In regard to and under said act of
June, 1874.
5. The acts and doings of Francis x. Ceuppens
In 1882 IN regard to the taxes of that year and
the threatened tax sale.
The matter was taken up instanter and
after argument of counsel had been heard
Judge Duffel oyerr7led the motion for the
subjoined reasons:
Some of the issues raised by plaintiffs in this
case were: that the then wardens passed a
resolution in 1874 in regard to the proposed
donation to the Archbishop which they, plain
tiffs alleged were invalid; that In pursuance of
said resolutions said wardens passed notarial
act donating to the Archbishop on 9th June,
1874, which they, plaintiffs, affirm is illegal;
that defendants did not comply with the con-
ditions OF the donation, although the revenues
of the church property while the same was in
their hands were ample and sufficient for them
to do So namely: to build new church, pay
the current taxes. etc. Plaintiffs also alleged
that to have permitted the property to go on the
delinquent list and to be advertised for sale
was in violation of law and the notarial
tract and forfeited the usufruct.
Now on these pleadings defendants file their
answer and put at issue every allegation of
of plaintiff, and upon that joinder the case goes
the evidence which defendants now move be
stricken out. Plaintiffs believe that their
allegations are material to make out their case,
and they have sought to prove these allegations.
PENDANTS say that these allegations are not
necessary and need not be proved. If SO, they
should have moved before answering, or in
their answer thai they be stricken off; or they
CHI hQu % % al nh tod tn {bo
of all testimony to prove these
superhaons or contradictory ayerments, If
such they be.
Itmay be, as defendants contend in argument,
that the usufruct expired with the charter of
1856, to-wit: on the day of -, 1881. or that
it expired at the death of Archbishop Perche;
or that the original donation OF 18th June, 1874,
was utterly null and void; but it might be
decreed otherwise, and plaintiffs may seek to
prove that defendants were trespassers, and as
we cannot presume that plaintiffs allegations
decide whether not the usufruct has expired
and lnftlct perhaps great iniuty on plaintiffs
by ruling out the testimony already taken; and
that as. at all events, the proofs do not, go
beyond what was alleged, we therefore over
rule the motion to strike out. as the testimony
objected to may aid us i'll the decision of this
case. |
Defendants reserved a bill of exceptions
to the ruling of the court, and the taking
proceeded with. Yesterday evening the
plaintiffs rested their case, reserring the |
right of rebuttaI, and to-day the introduc-
ton of testimony for the defense was CON-
menced. Father Ceuppens was the first !
witness called, and he was still on the stand |
when the hour for adjournment arrived. |
The court will not meet again until We'd
,esday next. 1t is anticipated, we believe,
hat the case can be submitted to Judge |