The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-05-02

DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. Nav l.,
| 1S4S.-Joseph Swager and others vs. The steonbo,,
| Childe Harold, Captain and OWaers-Actjon or
damages resulting from collision with steamboat
| Homer. Suit was commenced by attachment
which was dissolved, after a hearing, by the lll
District Court. This court had held in a case rs
| ported in the I'd Annual Reports that under tho
| provisions of the Code of Practice, an atacbmsn,
would not be maintained in an action for damapes
arising from tort The court had examined fba
subject with great care, and are satisfied that ibo
| former decision is correct. Judgment of the An
| District Court in THIS case, therefore affirmed with
| costs. ~
| State vs.. Lucy Ann Ca7dreH-The defendant
was convicted of a violation of the 8 ac to pre-
| vent gambling" approved March 18th, 1885. and
| from Judgment, condemning her to pay the fine
of $500, she appealed. The grounds of COM
plant In the Court below are presented in two bis
OF exception. The first was taken to the refnsal
of the Judge to permit the defendant to introluca
IN evidence the ordinances of the Sd Municpalilv
authorizing the game of Bagatelle to be PLAYED
The second bill of exceptions was taken to the ra
tusal OF the Judge, on a motion for a new trial ia
permit two of the jurors who tried the cause to h,
sworn to prove that they Were overaWed by abnse
and threats from other jurors and forced to render
a verdict contrary to their Judgment. This Court
thought the judge of the LIST District Court did no,
err in rejecting the ordinances of the Sd Munic
pality, for if they really do exist they are contrary
to the statute, and could not avail the accused as n
means of defence. As to the second bill of excen
tons, this Court was of opinion that the evidence
of the jurors was properly rejected Jurors cannot
be heard in evidence to impeach their own YER.
diets. The practice is well settled that the Court
must derive its knowledge of the misconduct of the
jury from some other source than the jurors them.
selves-l1 l.. Rep, p l45. judgment of the Isl
District Court affirmed, with costs.
Baker and Others VS.. Doan and Ohers-AppeaI
from the Fifth District Court.-Ihe defendants are
securities on bond given TO release property seized
under sequestration. A Judgment was rendered
against the defendants in the original cause, and
execution issued, which the Sheriff returned "No
property found" The plaintiffs then took this rule
on the sureles = to sheW cause why they should
not be condemned, in sohdo, to pay the amount of
judgment rendered against Doan and Bossiere the
defendants in the original suit" Morrison and
Deacon, the sureties on the bond, excepted to the
proceedings against them by rule, as being unwar.
ranted; averring that they had valid defences to
oppose to the demand, which they desired to plead
specially in an ordinary action by petition and ca-
ton The exception was overruled, and judgment
rendered against them slreties, from which theV
appealed. This Court thought the Court below
erred in overruling the exception. The surety ona
bond to release property sequestered in no
sense be considered party to the suit Judgment
of the District Court reversed-the rule discharged
and appellees to pay costs.
hroin VS.. HeaM.-Appeal from the Fifth Dis
Tte Comt.-l HIS oblIStbloii grew out Oh building
contract. Buckner and Heath owned adjoining
lots, and in the same month each made building
contract with Kirwin. The contract with Buckner
was few days earlier than that with Heath The
contracts were drawn to authorize each propretorto
believe that he was to pay for, and consequently
own the entire party-wall, and therefore that be
would be entitled to claim one-half its value from
his neighbor, should he it. Krwin received full
payment for the wall from Buckner, and the qres-
ton for the court was, whether reduction should
not be made in the plaintiffs claim against Heath,
for the value of the party wall The Disirc, Cour,
thought such reduction should be made, and rem.
dered Judgment accordingly, from which the plain.
tiff appealed. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Benjamin Mckinney vs. Steamboat YatlabHAo
and Owners- from the Second District Court.
Action for the recovery of the price of savs
hired by plaintiff to the defendants, which slave
was, as plaintiff says, lost or driven overheard in
trying to escape punishment Judgment in the
District Court for plaintiff and affirmed with cose
in this court.
THE suits of Ducloslonge ct. al. VS.. Philip Ross,
md Tufts y Hobart VS.. Carraline, VIII be gives
Jy us Tomorrow.