New Iberia enterprise and independent observer. (New Iberia, La.) 1902-1944, 1915-08-21


City and Of Act 147 of the Gen
eral Assembly of 1902 as amende,
by Act No. 40 of 1912 on the. >. .
day of ..... "A. D. 1911.
H. s. SEALY, Mayor.
L. F. VILLERMIN, elk
Motion of Mr.. Villermin, tC
continue the ringing Of the nine
o'clock Curfew bell, failed fol
/ want Of a second.
Invitation to Mayor H. S. Sealy
received, requesting his presence
at the Mayors Conference to be
held at Alexandria, Aug. % and
24th. On motion of Mr.. Viller-
min, seconded by Mr.. Suberbielle
the Mayor was authorized to be
present at the Conference being
held in Alexandria, the City Of
New Iberia to bear the expense.
The following report from
City Attorney L. o. Hacker was
received and ordered spread Oh
the minutes on motion Of Mr.. Viii
lermin. seconded by Sealy and
carried unanimously:
10 the Board of Trustees of the City of
New iberia.
In compliance with your request, I
have tho honor Of handing you report
on the status of the case entitled Afsad
Elias vs.. City of Mayer and Board of
Trustees of the City OF New Iberia, to
which have attached the decree of the
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana,
and other documents bearing of the case.
The death of Mrs. Assad Elias, which
gave rise to the present suit occurred on
January Goth. 1911, under rather N yste-
ri0us circumstances from which the fam
lily of the deceased i'm Jared that she be.
ing electrocuted, by the electric wires
over which plaintiff received current
for lighting his premises, coming in con-
tact with metallic clothes line in his yard
over which the deceased was in the act
of spreading bed spread or sheet.
Assuming that his wife had been elec-
trocuted. plaintiff Assad Elias filed the |
present suit against the present defend
ant claiming $25, OOU.L0 damages. This
suit was filed on June 18th, 1912.
This demand WAS properly met by the |
answer of the City's Atty. Mr.. Z. T. Du-
ANY, Oh the 28th day of October, 1912,
meeting every allegation of plaintiffs
petition,
On the issue thus formed this ease was
ried and submitted before the district
,ourt on March 18th, 1918, and taken
lndeF Amusement. and on the 3lst dav
May, 1918, his honor, Judge Simon rem
Tered a judgement in favor ofthe defend
INT City rejecting plaintiffs demand,
With costs.
This able and clear cut judgement of
Judge Simon, is Of itself . master piece
Il logical conclusion, and formed part
# the transcript of this case as it was
to the Supreme Court. And as
me of the Attys. for plaintiff remarked
o me, 1T is . com rlete knockout for u.s."
1t that time, was not connected with
he case, bat in my opinion this case was
Ibly tried by the Atty. representing the
;ity. See reasons for judgement Of
Judge Simon hereto attach ed { exhibit (A)
rom this ju augment defendants prosecut-
d an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In June 1913 the New Charter of this
,ity became operative. and the pre- sent
'oard took charge of the affairs of the
'ity, and was appointed City Atty.
/, of c0u 50 took the case as had it,
8 1t is well known that nothing could
. added or taken from the records as
ound then, and after examining carefully
be voluminous file containing the plead
ags and the evidence, prepared brief, II
7hich was filed before the Supreme Court
n September I'd, 1914, Exhibit b. in 1
be preparation of this brief followed
be line of arguments presented by nv {
Predecessor Mr.. Dulany, guided by the {
lcid reasonings of his honor Judge Vi. 9
ION in his judgment, and on the day FIX {
for the prese mt alton of the case before '
10 Supreme Count l appeared in person G
nd argued accordingly o.ally. This
ase was taken under advisement, and
eveval weeks thereafter the Supreme
curt handed down its judgement, revers-
x the judgment of the district court,
nd giving to defendant damages for the
,e sum of $4,000. 90. Exhibit CT
T is Supreme Court decree was render
4 on the 18th day of June, 1915, on the
5th day of the same month, received a
opy of said judgment with letter from
le Clerk of the Supreme Court inform I
e mt that had up to the 25th day of {
le same month until midnight within
hich to file motion for rehearing,
Exhibit D
This judgement voiced the opinion of .
he justices of the Supreme Court, His
|onor Justice Oniel disseDted but gave
o indication as to what his dissenting
pinion, or in what he dissented.
In it's decree, and reason for judgment,
le Supreme Court says this, 1.-THE wire