The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1897-06-12
IA tn which, "Rayon Blue' or

"A ~ WHICH bayou blue 81
"Bine Water" ia meant IN the opinion
Of the Court III the 81 Annual rs be-
ing intended to represent in part the
division line is perfectly clear.
Plaintiff in that suit Lad commended for
n certain "Bavon Blue" which took its
rise real she town of Thihodanxville.
Defendant has commended for a.'Bayou
Blue Waller" East of the first and
%fearer to Bayou Lafnnrche. The
Court distinctly rejected rs forming
any part of the divisional line the
Bayou insisted upon by defendant.
and as distinctly adopted, as part of
the line, the Bayou urged by the
plant fl. Several of the maps (of m
early period of the STATED filed in that
case, as well as in the present case.
show the connection between Bayou
Blue and a Bayou called .'DnChene'
or .'Chien," and locate them as IL
and the same stream the upper part
being called Bayou Blue and the low
er part Bayou Du Chene or CHEN.
flowing to the sea.
On this showing, and constituting the
act of the legislature, defining the
boundary between the Parishes, the
Court in the earlier case adopted
plaintiffs Bayou Blue with its eontin-
uation ''Bayou Du Chene", as the true
bayou Blue Water" mentioned in the
act OF 1922, as forming part of the
divisional line.
We are far from intimating that the
Court erred il determining this par
ticular "Bavou Blue" aid sBsyou
Duchene'. to be the Bayou Blue Wa
ter" referred to by the legislature. but
ever if this be error, we have showa
it cannot d4tract from the force Of the
judgment as res ddjudicata.
Their being 40 loon for doubt a. to
the intention of the opinion and dec rec
Of the Court, in the earlier case, with
regard to the Bayou in question. the
force and effect of that Judgment can
not he d~IssIpated on the plea of
interpreting and making clear what is
already free from ambiguity.
The defendant seems to occupy the
Inconsistent position of asserting that
the boundary line established BY this
Court in the earlier case, is the bonn
Diary line it claims and yet of averring
In ira answer that the judgment ca
tablishing the same is an absolute
nullity as undertaking to legislite and
not to decide. 1t would not ask to
have this Judgment decreed a nnllitv,
as was done in its supplemental
answer, if it believed there was any
force in its contention that it really
established or intended to establish
the divisional line it claims as the
true one.
The Judgment appended from must
be affirmed, and, accordingly, hat
decree is hereby entered.
In order to comprehend the full i'm
port of this decision, it is necessary to
reproduce..the decree of the district
court which it affirms and which is in
the words following:
sit is ordered, a~djndged and decreed
that the plaintiff. the Police Jury of
.Lafunrche, have Judgment against the
Jury of Terrebonne. sustaining
plea of res adjudicata founded on
the Judgment of the Supreme Court
rendered III 1882 and reported in 81
An. 1880. and declaring the boundary
line established by the Supreme Court,
and located as set forth IN the plain
s petition, TO be the boundary line
between the two parishes, said line to
be prolonged from the mouth of Bay
Dn du Chen across Timbalier Bay. It
5 decreed that the oyster beds in
Bay situated East of the
,aid line as prolonged are the proper
y Of the Parish of Lafourche, and the
Inspector and the Sheriff and
Tax Collector Of the Parish of Terre-
are forever enjoined and pro-
libited from collecting any license or
'tlier tax for fishing oysters from said
,eds and from interfering Herewith in
my manner