The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-03-22
Supreme Court.

The following cases Were decided by the Supreme
Court on the day before yesterday:
WcAntsfer VS.. Grant. in this case the verdict of
Jury for defendant in the lower court was affirmed
Stephens VS.. Hackeh: the verdict Of Jury in
favor of defendant, was in this case reversed, and
defendant ordered topay costs of the suit this suit
concerned the ownership of slave.
William Stephens vs. Oran HacteH defendant
in this case claimed the sum of S36f6 S. in recon
vention Judgment in reconvention had been given
in his favor 10 the amount Of 1864 69; plaintiff APP
pealed, and the Supreme Court reversed the decis-
ion, giving Judgment for plaintiff, IN the sum ot
1927 IS. with costs in both Courts.
Sn0tD VS.. n. q J. Troter: Judgment of the Dis
tric Court affirmed, with costs.
.fcioor vs. EHzabeh CrGtg Judgment of lower
Court in favor of defendant reversed.
AzGmn Arart turk, vs.. Francis ID. Nemcomb,
et. ai. f. Gardfre, warranlor in this the udg
ment Of the lower Court reversed, and it was
ordered that plaintiff recover from her uarranior
F. Gardere. the sum Of &151S 81, with interest at
per cent. per arnum, instead of $3.50 the amount
Of the previous Judgment.
J. N. Dduidson VS.. Mary kinchen the Judgment
appealed from was affirmed with costs.
Williams vs.. Parish Of East Baton Rouge judg-
ment affirmed with costs
Ncltehec VS.. Broun Judgment of the District
Court reversed.
I0hn Putnam vs.. John II. Dauilson the udg-
ment appealed from W. reversed, and il was order
ed that plaintiff recover from the defendant the sum
Of $1,000, with interest and costs.
Noagct vs.. DamSon.: the Judgment Of the Dslrc,
Court was reversed.
J. III. Hand vs.. j. Carmenu Judgment appealed
from affirmed.
THOMAS Welsh vs.. r. r. Barron: Judgment az
firned.
Ordn HackeH v. FnnnciS Hacheu, e. a.: this was
a suit brought by an iegitimaie child, for the re-
covery of "A certain portion of his fathers estate,
said TO have been left 10 him by will ; the lower
Court gave Judgment in favor Of plaintiff, for the
sum of stl270 70 the Supreme Court reversed the
decision and orders Judgment for plaintiff i'll the
sum of $500.
~ c. ihN vs.. Nanueia ~. Lorenh: the judy
ment of The lower Court in Mis- case was reversed.
Bank Of Louisiana VS.. A. &. Wongmm'S success
Sion-H Cart ord Mrs. Corcoran, appts.: i'll this
case, defendants sed as endorsers of Il proms-
sorry note; it decreed that 10 Ii. Carl, the
judgment of the lower Court be affirmed, but that
in the case of Mrs. Corcoran, it be reversed
Valentine Dubro"a vs.. L.. fdrrot and MeriF: judg
ment in this affirmed.
.John Fog vs. Ihomas b, Irrper: in this case the
decision Of The District Court was alfirlneds so far
il DEGREES the amount due by defendant, and the
sequestraiiou is set aside.
Jan1eS w. DooAS aad james W. DomncS, tutor vs..
4. W. u f. b. Scott in this case the Judgment
rendered by the lpercr Court, in favor of plaintiffs,
affirmed with costs and it was further ordered
that the Judgment in favor of defendants against
the Warrantor Hector Phillips. be reversed.
IhoS Z. FG5ror VS.. c. ~. Ro,pleg and s. ".
FroSAD ". Ce1 vs.. c. A. Rowiey-and Eii-obeH3
hcmpt Vs. c. ~ Ro~tey-li nghf, Williams y Co.,
apps: i'll these cases il ordered thai The iuIg-
ment in favor of Wright, Williams & Co., be af-
firued, with costs that the Judgment i'll favor OF
John +. Curtis be affirmed, with costs and that
the Judgment in favor of Isaac J. Course, Sheriff,
be reversed.
Moses Groves vs. Fart .Stecl and VIZ: Judgment
in this affirmed, with costs.