
    No. 6118.
    State ex rel. Hugo Redwitz vs. Judge of the Sixth District Court, Parish of Orleans.
    This is a cpies.tion of jurisdiction turning on the amount in dispute. This depends, of course, upon the sum which Redwitz, the appellant, is called upon to pay, to wit: $491, amount of the claim against him, eight, dollars interest duo, and tho costs of tho suit, sovonty dollars, in Gottsehalk vs. Meyer, a foreign non-rosi-dont, for whom Redwitz wont security. Therefore the sum demanded of Rod-witz was $569. This was tho dispute between thorn. This brings the 'ease within tho jurisdiction of tho court.
    APPLICATION for a writ of mandamus against the Judge of the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans.
    
      B. B. Forman, for relator. Respondent, Judge Saucier, in propria persona.
    
    
      Labatt, Aroni & Clinton, for Gottsehalk, plaintiff in the i ule on Redwitz.
   Morgan, J.

Suit was instituted by Gottschalk against Meyer for $491. Meyer was arrested as a foreign non-residont. Redwitz went on his bond. The amount of his bond was $625, Judgment was rendered against Meyer for $491, with eight dollars interest and costs.

. Gottsehalk took a rule on Redwitz to show cause why he should not be condemned to pay him $491, and eight dollars interest and costs of suit and costs of the rule.

The rule was made absolute. Redwitz applied for an appeal, which was refused on tho ground that the amount in dispute does not exceed five hundred dollars. He applies for a mandamus to compel the district judge to grant the appeal.

What is the amount in dispute? This, depends, of course, upon tho amount which Redwitz is called upon to pay. What is that amount? It is $491, amount of tho claim, eight dollars interest duo, and the costs of the suit in Gottschalk vs. Meyer. These costs are seventy dollars. Therefore the sum demanded of Rodwitz was $569, and this was tho dispute between them; i. e., whether Redwitz should pay $569. This brings the case within our jurisdiction.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the rule herein taken be made peremptory.  