The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-03-23
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Condensed Decisions-NEw ORLEANS, March 49,

The cashier of bank competent witness on behalf o.
the bank to prove transactions occurring in the regular
Of his business Where the time during which
promssory note has to run left blank patol evidence
admissible to prove that it the intention and under
standing Of the parties to the that should be pay
able at certain time Such note may also be
sldered as an intentional submission of the term to the
bank by which it is discounted
| UNION BANK OF LOUISIANA Us. Moses L.
| MEEKER ct AL. Appeal from the Sirth Judicial
District Court, Parish Of East Baton Rouge. No.
| 1888. .SLIDELL, j.. Per Curiam: The defend
ant, Walker, is sued upon promissory note of the
following TENOR
5000. ",CLINroS. La, 18th March. 1871
- months after date promise to pay John Henry
Back or order the sum OF nine hundred dollars for value
Bank of Louisiana Parish Of East Fecana; waving bank
jno ens Ba:t e A. 1 WsfsE v"
The petition alleges that the note was intended to
be at twelve months, and that the omission blank
was oversight.
At the trial of the cause, the plaintiff offered to
prove, by the deposition of the cashier of the
banks branch at Clinton, where the note was dis
counted that he was such cashier at the date Of
the note, and had been for several years previous;
that 1t was given in renewal of an accommodation
note of $1,000, made by Meeker on the 10th March,
1889, at twelve months endorsed by Walker and
Black, which was protested in March, 1910, and
had lam over until It's renewal by the note in ques
ton; that twelve months the usual term of
notes discounted at the branch that it was the in
entlOn and understanding of the parties that the
note should be payable at Twelve months, and the
omission his own. To this testimony excep-
ton was taken, upon the grounds that paro testi-
mony was inadmissible and that the cashier was
incompetent by reason of interest The exception
was sustained by the Court.
The testimony does not go to contradict the
written instrument, but to supply an omission
which, upon the face of the contract, was either an
oversight of the parties, else an intentional SUBJ
mission 0t the n the 1iScrafiOn pf thp
lhe cashier was not an Incompetent witness.
The rule which admits agents TO testify in behalf
of their employer, as to matters in which they have
been engaged, has its foundation in public conven-
lence and necessity; for otherwise affairs of daily
and ordinary occurrence could not be proved, and
the freedom of trade and commercial intercourse
would be inconvenently restrained. Greenleaf's
Ev. y 4l6. Thus, the porter, the journeyman, or
salesman, Is admissible to prove the delivery of
goods, so factor to prove sale of his prn-
cpal's effects, though he is to have a commission
on the amount In the United States Bank u.s.
Stearn, Is Wendell, 3f6, the teller of a bank was
held TO be competent In suit for an overpayment
made to the defendant upon his checks, to testify
that by mistake he overpaid the defendant one
hundred dollars. The Court there said the case
came within the rule of necessity 1t was,
they remarked, extremely improbable that any
person less interested than the teller could have
any knowledge on the subject. 1t related to a
transaction in the regular course of his business
THESE views Apply WIFI peculiar pfOprlely 10 the
cashiers of the country branches Of our banks who
are generally the sole employees. See also Frank
lin Bank Us. Freeman, Is Pick. 500.
We are not TO be considered as saying that even
without the cashiers testimony the Bank would
not have right to fill up the blank See Conch-
ley Us Clearance, 2 Maui, 80. Collins Us. En-
NETT, Hen. Bla 3l3; Russell Us. Langstaff,
Doug 496, 5l4 Chitty, PIP. SO, $40 and notes.
1t is, therefore, decreed, that the judgement be
reversed, and the cause remanded for further pro-
ceedings, according to law, the defendant and ap-
Winter, for the plaintiff and appellant; Adams
for defendants and appeees.
WIN. G. GRIFFIN u.s. LEWIS FIELD, EFT AL.
Appeal from the SeuenM judicial District Court,
ment affirmed, with costs.
The service of the citation and petition in the English
language only, when the defendants maternal tongue
is the French is not valid ground for an injunction
FRANCOIS ORTIs AND HYACINTHE LEcoUR u.s.
BENJAMIN PoYDRAs DE LALANDE AND CHARLES
MORGAN. Appeal from the Seventh judicial Dis
trid, Parish Of West Feliciana. No 1862 =.
EUsTIs, CD. Per curiam On the 18th Nav.
1888, judgement was rendered by the court fthe
third district, held in the parish of West Felicana
in favor of Charles Morgan and Benjamin Poydras
de Lalande. against Francois Ortis and widow
Antoine Laconr, for the sum of S1312 SO, with in
terest: The judgement was by default, and the de-
fault had been regularly entered on the 9th MAY
pIevIous' IL was nor notiled 10 the defendants I'M
I'll io4l. In June, 1917, execution was issued, and
ee uG'enuaIs, VINO are the piaihtliiS In ms sult
the caue tha ~ uo IIoea on hearing ol
plaintiffs were adjudged to pay the sum of $3.50,
e, YES anu cosss oI SUIT Judgement lor 'he same
un mas "so J aSals. 1e sule'iSs on the
* F,n oou rfo .ilis Judgement 'e PAIN
''i, r ,ha o.;. 0,' e. has appealeu.
70 nv ioi tat plailltliis seek
;s GNU .he Juusees on ~hich i,ie execution
issHeu, ol lne groulu oi Irauu, ana because the
peaa,iGli anu Gl.a3;o Ln lslt sun were served on
,o III t's Lsi,sn F1amgJase ofiy, 'e maternal
VI oor ntlg rre,ich. vi 'he hfst ground
h 1efe Is no sGlclens eVldehce and as to the Other
ot Ing p" b apsaeu' 'e cause ASSUMED would
&c co. su u IasG authorized me
hna p % '' sze Nheeds 81 al U.s. De-
D" NJ J ,.op 20 suo1
,t ailo'seu 10 not eAceeu twenty per
., oi .e a1u; VI me Juogehel ana the DIS
tifG. ooF. was lusiilapie IN awarding them (Act
TT maaGn ~ io9 o., vi Ahiual ozS, Brown u.s.
bi ioiu: 90, 1Iahna U.s. I've" orleans Gas