Year: 1876


legged violation of whicn said relators are
now in durance in the Parish Prison, merely
in order to enforce the penal statute COM
monty called the act No. 81 of 1874 The
petition in the injunction suit simply sets
forth that Peter Lacaze has been for many
years past and is still now engaged in bust
ness in this city a. Q butcher; that for the
past five years he has carried on his busi-
ness in the Magazine Street Market; that
the defendants (relators herein) are carry
ing on private markets within twelve
violation of the act No. 81 of 1874; that in
consequence of the aforesaid illegal acts of
said defendants, said plaintiff, Pierre
Lacaze, has sustained great loss and in
jury in his business a. butcher, which
loss, injury and damage exceed the sum Of
$500, and that said plaintiff will sustain
further loss, damage and irrepsrsble it,
jury if the defendants are permitted to
carry on and continue their private mar
ket in violation of the law. There is not sn
allegation in that petition as to how, when
nor what that injury is. In the case of
Sparhawk We. Union Passenger Railway
Company, before cited, the court holds this
Significant languages: ut is not impossible
to construe plausible argument on the the
ory that any violation Of q penal law is,
without more, special injury; but such an
injury is too 'shad0wy' to be the founda-
ton for equitable interference; and be-
sides, the penal law is the remedy in such
case to redress it, and equity does not in
terfere." In WetmOre vs. Story, % Bar
principle: IF an injunction is sought to
prevent the building of . railroad in Q
street adjoining ones land in New York
city, on the ground of special injury, the
complaint should show specifically the
grievance which is complained of, and .
general allegation that it is 'iniuri0us' 10 in
sufficient" The thing complained of by
Pierre Lacaze is solely that the relators
herein carry on their private markets with
in twelve squares of the Magazine street
public market, in violation of the act No.
illegal acts he has sustained loss, injury
and damage to IN amount exceeding $500,
and that he will suffer further loss, damage
and irreparable injury ii they are permitted
to carry on their private markets in viola
ton of the law. Lacaze does not complain
of any injury to property or to the enjoy.
ment of property, nor does he show sny-
he does not even allege that the relators, by
carrying on their private markets in violar
piOn or enjoyment of the stand which he
occupies in the Magazine street market. or
prevent him to carry on his business a. q
butcher and sell his meat. The injury or
grievance alleged and complained of by
Lacaze, to use the language of Chief Justice
Woodward in the case of Sparkawk, is "too
shsdowy" to be the foundation for equitable
interference, and it seems evident that the
injunctions issued in the case of Pierre LA.
Gaze must be considered a. an attempt to
enforce penal statute by civil process in q
o1C Gil thnrohv hnnSnoaa
petition. Guided by the numerous author
tiles before quoted, am of opinion that
the Superior District Court is without juris-
diction to entertain proceedings in injuDc-
ton in the premises, and that its orders to
that effect are null and void as being corun,
non JUDGE.


For these reasons this court will in no
case cOuntenance the violation of the law.
The act No. 81 of 1874 should be enforced
by the officers directed so to do by the law,
and before the proper tribunals. 1t is Or
absolute, and the relators be released from
the custody of the criminal sheriff.


Fifth District Court.


John S. Nichols vs.. Justice of First Mu-
nicipal Police Court.-Habess corpus. Pc
titioner is committed to answer q charge of
embezzlement OF $3.50 from A j. Redmond.
He was arrested in Texas. He claims that
only the Fifth Municipal Police Court has
jurisdiction. That has refused to act, the
affidavit not being made there. The State
claimed the offense was complete when de.
mand was made in the First District. The
affidavit did not specify either district, bat
only that the offense was within the juris-
diction. Defendant argued that the Fifth
District Court had no jurisdiction to issue
the writ of habess corpus in this case, but
Judge Cullom held that the power was in
all district courts having Jurisdiction to
that the affidavit was properly brought be.
fore Justice Evans, who might hold the
prisoner till he was brought before. the
proper tribunal. but had no power to try
him. Writ discharged and prisoner re-
mandod,