The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-01-31
TERMS OF THE oREscrHr.
NE w EANS:
WEDNESDAY MORNING, JANUARY 81, 1s4o.
4upretae Count Of Iouigiaoa.

4uprgtae Count of Iouigfqna.
Condensed Decisions. Monday, Jan. 90 1s4o
Jnsses OF h s6 Peace are under the Statutes
charged with offences punishable by death or imprson
ment at hard labor for years more and bond
aKen oy them IN such cases for the appearance of par
e accused are void. being in contravention of pro
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Us. MICHAEL HAYS =. No
ii63 IN the Supreme Court. Appeal from the District
Court Of Ierrebonne. KING, j.. Hays was arrested
and taken before Justice of the Peace an affidavit made
that he had killed Ainswoh The Justice considered
that the evidence established the commission of the crime OF
MURDER notwithstanding which he admitted the accused to
bail in the sum of 5000 An Indictment for murder was
subsequently found against the accused failed to
and answer to the charge. The District Attorney thereupon
moved for Judgment against the security the bond
which motion was opposed the ground that the Jus
was without authority to admit the accused to bail The
objection was sustained and the State has appealed
e case 81 the State u.s. Harper recently decided Sd Annual
KeDors not yet epoed1 had examine into
the of justices of the Peace to admit parties 10 bail
Hs5s 70 o VIZ e de i sa i The case of the State
70 grant bail when the offence YVES punishable with death
imprisonment at hard labor for seven years or more and
OF parties accused were void being contravention Of
Msicb M Ss e. So Nay a ESQ A b g. s.
ws JSdgement9 the District Court therefore affirmed
No counsel appeared for the defendant and appellee.
In redhbitoy actions, where death has occurred within
short time after the sae and the physicians who treated
the patient the disease which caused it, and
decided opinion as 70 the probable date of its commence
nsndee a as Courts must The
when he saye confined to his bed by disease the
butprocures the best medical aid within his reach.
HIRAM McGAw HATCH & GRINAGE.-No. Il49 in
the Supreme Cout.4ppeaL from the District Court of
KING, J.... Defendants are sued ss the
makers OF pomissory note and plead in defence that the
note was given for the price of slave who affected
the date of the sale with ncuabe disease of which she
subsequently died The judgement of the lower Court
in favor of the plaintiff and defendants have appealed
lipnin. huth Al
ants purchased the slave of the plaintiff the 10th April
1876 About month after the sale, while the slave was
walking IN the field voluntary fracture of the thigh bone
occurred which confined her to her bed until about the
OF July following, when she died The two physicians by
whom she treated during her last Illness died before the
ta Of the cause IN consequence OF which their testimony
was not obtained They assisted in the post norton
and says that the three conceded in opinion that the slave
died of affection of the bone and that the fracture
SEQUENCE Of the condition of the bone which far de
Of y that was broker s BY The ordinary
slow It's progress and from the dis
the fracture and The ordinary course Of the disease for
maea 1GngeI me Two other physicians were examined
TO be incurab that is slow in its progress. that
early STAGES il i frequently unattended with pain Other
liked and that ordinarily voluntary fractures do
until has existed for two orthree months This testimony
Dhes the existence oil the disease TO the sale with
much certainly Is can usually be attained in such The
ponds entirely upon medical opinions, applies all
which the malady manests tse by symptoms until
determined by appearances exhbsd upon dissection after
death Snch tmony, true be received with
SALE and the physicians who treated the patient
o sSG ne al opnd M
babe date OF It's commencement il such evidence
slave has been proved The circumstances OF this case ex
cuse the omission Previous the institution of this the
bored the date Of the purchase and from no fault or neg
ect Of he defendants The first notce which the defend
limb which confined the slave to her bed until her death
Ess ne NEGLECT s sst ss
pei9n N s. AZ We think that the defendants have
Court therefore reversed and judgement rendered in favor
e .As hs plaintiff 70 he both
counsel appeared for the plaintiff and appellee.
Art 1876 c. r. does not apply to case where an action has
6sen instituted on pomssoy note which has BEEN
the commences gnature That article IS in deroga
non OF the general law Of evidence and must be strictly
construed 1t must not be extended beyond those ord
nary TO which it clearly applies and which alone
are to be considered as contemplated by the awgive'
Louis LEsosD AGENT, ETC, Us. WIDOW TERESA C.
RoAcn-No $50 in the Supreme Cour-AppeaL from the
District Court Of ascension .SIIDELL, LA for
mer action had been brought upon the which forms the
basis of the present suit but the Parish Court house
destroyed by conagation and with it the The Pc
tOn alleges the destruction of the and also the
consideration for which the defendant gave itgoods fur
nhed to her In her she asserted that the
forgery and accompanied the plea by her oath AT The
trial the plaintiff offered two witnesses who proved pre-
OF defendant ana her acknowledgment
OF its genuinene To the admission of such evidence the de-
PENDANT objected upon the ground that the defendant had
pleaded the forgery under OATH the plaintiff could only be
permitted to prove its genuness either by witnesses who had
they knew the signature be hers expert, compar
Sai ar declares Ss BY s Gv GOe The
nature IN his answer contend thai the has been
By o s %
sign the act who declare that they know it to be his Sig
sign his But the proof by witnesses shall not exclude
the BY by eSpeT p 0g % son. Of writing
in the of Plque Labanche g L. 560) which was
action against an snde"e v who disputed his Signature
acknowledgment of Labranche that the endorsement was
by the defendant and received by the Court beow Upon
appeal was held martin, j.. acting the of the
the Code thus interpreted in derogaon of the general
law of evidence and therefore be strictly construed 1t
clearly applies and which alone are 10 be considered as
Sp % o ny the Bs the nos S9 been
stroyedaa circumstance not presented in of the
has been destroyed is s possible 10 mest the equision
OF the Code Of Practice This true but il Is not the whole
good fortune find witnesses acquainted with the party
handwriting who have the note before its destruction
note. But obvious that in most cases the woud
be put to Disadvantage by the destruction of the The
would be restricted to witnssse who had seen and examined
The note before its while IN case, where the IN
Of the entire Parish for experts and of the whole State
he rule Of the Code to
Sse thus on, o. me category and Where ne ends Of
es D could Ths
therefore no error II the ruling of the Court below On the
testimony Of two witnesses whose charactsf has been
mpeached They the presentation of the to the
anenes they also that I goods ss to her pants
ton were the consideration of the note and that the obec
lief that had been already paid Facts to by other
testimony the beteved.