The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-04-30

| succ6SstlttI
with the British in the commerce of Mexico. 1t i
true that we are carrying on "a large trade through
| the Rio Grande country. The same result woul,
attend regular and periodical intercourse b,
| steamers with Vera Cruz.
Supreme Court Ofthe State of Louts,a ma
lie foung vs. DE Young. a.. .Dowry consists O
property brought by the wife to support the expense
OF the marriage, and is administered by the hus
band. In this case, the property by contract wa
| expressly retained BY the wife, and was strict,
parapherna property. There is no evidence tina
the husband ever received any part of it. Judg
ment in his favor affirmed, reserving the right o
| the wife to any property alienated by him.
Holmes vs. THE Sheriff Of East Felictana.
The act OF 1913, for carrying public works, doe.
not give the Police Juries power to tax retailers O
dry goods. The statute provides the taxes shall b.
equally assessed on real estate and persona
property, as the Jures may deem expedient. The
power does not authorize the taxation of persons
Judgment reversed, and one in favor of plaintiff.
Cusin VS.. Clement. :. "A case turning on test
mony. Judgment affirmed
The State VS.. Lartiguse ct al. A party indicted
cannot appear by counsel in his absence. He
must be arraigned and plead in person. The sub
ornation of perjury in any of the Courts of the
State, is crime reached by the act of 1905, which
Furnishes the subornation of perjury, in any of the
Courts of this Territory" Judgment FORGETTING
bond affirmed.
The State vs. Leonard ct al. If several are in
dcted and tried together, if there is no evidence
against one, the Court may, in its discretion, order
the Jury to return verdict in his case and he
may then be used as witness for the others. In
this case, the record does not show the state of facts
which called for the exercise of this discretion.
Judgment of conviction affirmed, Threats made
by the person killed, several days before the affay
do not afford extsnuaton to reduce the homicide to
manslaughter.
The State VS.. Martin ct al. Judgment affirmed
for the reasons given in the case of Boyer.
Holland VS.. Ioole. -" Where there is no conceal
ment nor fraud, the law will give no remedy
against want of discernment in judging the quail
ty of things" A party received quantity of salt
in sacks, and sold it again on the levee; the re.
ceipt and sale precludes the defendant from object
ng to its condition, unless an agreement changing
the general rule is shown. There being no evil
lence of the kind, the case must be governed BY
The general rule. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed
EdgeH, hulford y Co. VS.. Barataria Canal Co.
A mere question of fact. Judgment for defendants
affirmed.
Succession Of Christie. The act of 1887 re-
luiring administrators to deposit moneys in banks
paying interest deposits is constitutional 1t is
he duty of administrators to deposit in banks,
,ven if none pay interest. Security was the great
object of the law, and the interest was merely in
,idental. Another great object of the law was to
destroy the temptations for strangers to get hold of
The judgment of the District Court
muced the administrator at the rate of 20 per cent
interest from the receipt of the money. Affirmed
Elmore vs. Kirmam. Appeal not brought up
in time. Dismissed.
Slater VS.. Isernan ct al. "A garnishee who
in his answers refers to any written instrument
not obliged to produce it, unless he is notified by ex
cepton of the Selling creditor. In this case the
garnishee referred to deed of trust passed before
notary in this city The Selling creditors did not
call on him to produce it, nor gave any notice of
objection. Judgment for plaintiff reversed and the
case remanded.
Skipwith VS.. Mrs. Taylor ct a.. Affirmed.
RiddeH VS.. E6ingv. All informalities in a
Sheriff S sale barred by five years. When an
order of seizure has been obtained and the first
writ returned, an alias may issue without new
order. Judgment affirmed.
Pettepain VS.. Rtdeau ct al. -. Judgment at.
firmed.
Dufouy ct al. VS.. Ridsau ct al. =. Judgment
affirmed
Byrne VS.. Cotton ct al. The judgment sought
to be enforced by ordinary action is not final. 1t
equires something to be done before it can be en-