New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1852-03-29

On the 9th of August 1851, plaintiffs made abandon
ment in writing for total os which rejected by
the defendants and this suit brought on the same
day.
In their answer filed the defendants take the same
grounds in their the 31st July. and in addition
plead unseaworthiness.
In my reorganization of dates above to the tim Of
the first discovery of the leak, the change Of
the arrival Of the Veasco at Decros Landing her
turn to port have followed the protest must remark
that there H. however singular discrepancy from this
date of the latter event in portions Of the evidence
For find that the copy Of the notice Of survey the
sci furnished by the notary is dated the oath June
when according the protest vessel was at sea and
the average statement declared that the yelasco was
beaced Decros Point the 25th June, 1861 although
| 26th.
The policy of insurance sued upon contains the follow
ing clause:
The assured not to abandon on account of the
boat grounding Or being otherwise detained in
of the loss of the boat vessel or part of the cargo or of
damage to the whole part thereof it shall be the duty
OF the master agent Of the vessel to forward such part
OF the cargo as shall be saved in fit condition to be ship
ped to its port of destination by the best OBJ
tanabe at the place where the shipped goods may
at any other place within reasonable distance the
enhanced expense thereof not exceeding the amount in
| sured, shall fall on the insurers
The practcabity of procuring conveyance to forward
the cotton in question proved by the fact that the
ton was forwarded to NewOrleans its port of destination
at said sale.
There is proved to have been weekly communication
by steamboat between Matagorda Bay and Neworleans
and the proceedings of the sale of the cotton under the
circumstances appear to to be manifest violation Of
the clause in the policy above quoted.
Judgment tor defendants with costs.
| FIFTH DISTRICT CoURT-T o. Starke, Re
cei,er etc. vs. Charles Hnrod ct aThis interesting
was decided Saturday by verdict of jury 1t was
brought in 1872 by the Commissioners Of the Atcha
faaya Bank against Harrod and his suretes for the
amount of his bond cashier of the bank$500o The
petition of plaintiff embraced the following allegations
That by the culpable negligence of the said Charles
arrod cashier of said bank during the years 1S4O
841 and the early part Of 1872 in not experimenting
he bound to DO the receiving and paying teller the
and ffHc of ipst NV
incorrect and false statements to the board of drec-
Of the amount Of bank notes put into circulation by
said bank and by not accounting for the funds en-
trusted to him he bound to dealcation the
| amount of s1S7, 2e5 has occurred in the bank
| The bond given by Harrod shown to have been
signed in blank, and subsequently filed up by the COM
mssioners On this ground the defendants argued nva
lidy They also deny in their the responsibility
of Iarrod for the dealcaton Of the teller who allowed
to have absconded with funds to the of SlS 95
The Judge stated to the jury that the principal ques
tons decided by them was whether the defendant
Harrod cashier exercised due diligence and he
had not whether he liable for the deacation of the
teller The jury returned verdict for the defendants
FIFTH DISTRICT CouRT.-John M. Bach &.
Louis Bouiigny opposition to the Of the EXECUTORS
Of the McDonogh estate.-Judge Buchanan yesterday
dered his decision on motion for trial, made by
defendants in this case the main facts of which we have
already published, but which may be recounted fol-
lows Messrs Bach and Bouligny appointed appra
of that portion of the McDonogh property lying with
in the Parish of Jefferson and having discharged the u
ties of their Office they credited by the
their account, with 81 per diem, compensation. The
appraisers however, rendered bill Tor sl2 per diem
which for fifty days services amounted to $500 for each
commended that the law had not established any par
tcuar limit to the fee compensation for such Office
they entitled to fair and reasonable remuneration
which 81 per diem was not The law Of March 21s 1880
reads as follows
In any suit proceeding where fee compensation
not established by law may be involved it shall be allow
ed to either party to pray for trial by jury whether
such fee or compensation be claimed from insoven
estate or corporation whether by way of opposition
| othcrwse.n
This allowing the law to be good held settling
the question The plaintiffs claimed trial of the case
by jury and the jury rendered verdict in accordance
with the law and the evidence Judgment given
cordingy but the defendants objected to the decision
the ground that the law Of March 2st $780,
sttuonal, and demanded trial The constitution.
| al provision CART ~ reads as follows;
No Court or Judge shall make any allowance by way
of fee compensation in any suit proceeding except
for the payment Of such ministerial Offices may be
tablished by law
Judge Buchanan supported the views the executors
defendants pronounced the Law Of 2st March 1880 uu
constitutiolal and ordered trial Of the rause