New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1853-06-01

ted and open mouthed visagc
The District Attorney Dunn made short speech the
prosecution. He followed by Col Field for the de-
fence.
Col Field made very Ingenious defence unfolding the
various circumstances with mastery ability As the
counsel deveopedand successfully combated the various
circumstances, opening shadow of hope to the unforu
nate accused could perceive CLEAN of satisfaction
stealing her features that in time expanded into
fash of unaoycd and perfect content. The counsel ar
gued that the evidence only crcumtantal Accused
lived in the house alone, accompanied only by female
servant Taylor the deceased did not live there There
was evidence that the accused in the house on the
night of the homicide She had in fact been seen
in the house and the evidence of her residence there was
only hearsay oher persons might have had access te
house and the murder might have been committed by
another The circumstance of the bloody knife being
found in the house did prove that had been used by
the accused-it might have been used by another Nc
proof had been elected show that the accused was ar
rested on the spot whore the homicide was committed
The whole evidence Of the most unsatisfactory and
ragged description and could not in the opinion Of the
counsel justify conviction.
Counsellor ennen followed tho part of the prisoner
and eontendcd that she had right to defend her chastity
by killing the aggressor He Illustrated his point nv
citing the the Boman soldier slew the pephew
OF Caius Marius in defence of his honor The learned
further calculated his point by citing case Of
the Queen of the Gohs who killed the Roman General
who had violated her chastity and by the further
PIE of the woman of Rhebes, who when solicited in an
improper manner by foreign conqueror-askiug for
further spoistold him to look in the bottom of
n well. and sent him there, head first
At the conclusion of Mr.. Hennen's address, Mr. Taylor
brother of the deceased stepped forward and asked
Judge. have right to speak few words ?"
By the Court No, sir 80
| And Mr. Taylor resumed his seat
Mr. Attorney General Morse then addressed the Court
The Court afterwards proceeded to deliver its charge
The first question rthe determination of tho Jury was
did Agnes Anderson kill Vim B Taylor ~ They must
make their minds without any regard to the age the
Or appearance Of the prisoner 1t their duty to dves
their minds o every prejudice. Having found the fact f
they should find it, the offence is MURDER unless the
prisoner show circumstances of extenuation justification
They be carried away by the ecla
nation of counsel to take their statements for facts
They to hold the scales Justice even and smite on
the side that falls Doctrines had been preached in this
trial that struck at the foundations society The ex
amples that had been cited were monstrous Because
one murderer had gone unpublished, it no argument
in favor of another offending in like manner If the ury
find that Agnes Anderson did kill VIM Taylor the JUS
featon depends on herself In the absence of this Jus
tcaton the verdict should be guilty. There were hut
four verdcts either Of which might be rendered in this
case. First verdict Of Guilty. in which the punish
ment would be death second Guilty. without capital
punishment punished with Imprisonment for life
third, Manslaughter" with fine and imprisonment for
term of years; or verdict of acqutal in which case
| the prisoner would be discharged
The jury then retired t being nearly oelocll to con-
| slider of their verdict
After an absence of fifteen minutes they returned with
| a verdict of Not Guilty"
And the prisoner discharged.
| SUPREME COURT DECIsIoNs~-This Court met
Monday and rendered decisions IN the following cases
They would have been published in our edition of ye
terday hut for the fact that there existed an agreement
among the members Of the Press and thu, Clerk Of the
Court not to publish them until Wednesday of each week
This agreement was violated by of the city papers
yesterday by which they succeeded in gettip,
day ahead Of Us and other eotemporares in the pub
| LEGATION Of the decisions
Mrs 7 W. Rounbree, appellee. q, Brilliant Steamboat
Company appellants Appeal from the Third District
Court Of NewOreans Judgment affirmed
James I b Featherston h, appellant, rs T A. Comp
ton, ct al Mcdowell Mills Co, garnishees appellees
'.Appea from the First District Court Of NewOreans
..Judgme affirmed
VIM. Bonner, appellee rs John II Becker appellant
Appeal from the Third District Court of jefferson
Judgment reversed and Judgment rendered for defendant
John Watson appellee, Charles r kennedy appel
liant. Appeal from District Court Of NewOreans
Judgment affirmed
succession Of Spencer Gates John Walker curator ap-
pelant, Widow Arnira Gates, appellee . Appeal from |
-
District Court the trial Of the Of the sh of June
le52 affirmed. Judgment Of the court below on the |
application Of Widow Gates for nuly Of Judgment
affirmed
James 7. Featha1ston'h appellee rs T A. Compton
ct ais WIN @. Kendall garnishec appellant m Appeal
from First District Court OF NewOrleans . Judgment
reversed and judgment rendered for WIN G. Kendall
garnshce, and against the plaintiff J t b Feather
ston
IMPORTANT To SHIPPERS AND STEAMBOAT
OWNERS following decision has been rendered by
Judge Livingston Of the Fifth District Court in the case
OF Hardness Son against Church, Master and owner Of
the Steamboat Bulletin NO
Plaintiffs residing in Philadelphia sold to John IIib
bard ol Napoleon. Arkansas quantity Of merchandise
consisting chiefly OF ready made clothing The merehan
dlsr was shipped to NewOrleans. to NJ Greenwood Co
and by them shipped board Of defendants boat to The
owners at Napoleon The goods landed on the wharf
boat az the place Of delivery the master of the wharf
boat. and payment the freight was made nv him mo
steamer passed on its way up the river after the
landing the wharf boat and the goods were entirely de-
stroyed by FIRE The plaintiffs bring suit recover
sos u the value Of the goods and aege that no deli
very by the carriers made, The only question is
was There delivery The testimony proves beyond all
oouo That 1t IS the usual custom the Mississippi river
TO deliver goods the master OF the wharf boat h. nav
ing freight on delivery Ii there actual agreement
between the congnecs at the various places on the river
tha the keeper Of the wharf boat shall their agent
anu receive goods and pay freight there is at Least ct
Understanding OF this kind for the keeper Of the wharf
ooee uniformly receives freight pays charges and collects
from the consgnees The Ima frcia Obligation of thr
carrier H to make an actual delivery the c5nsgnee but
TINS oOgaton may be affected by well established and
generally well known custom and usage Angel on q g
SOl Lord Tenterdou in the Of the HYDE vs. the
Trent and Mersey Navigation Company decided that the
manner of delivering the goods and consequently The
period at which the responsibility the carriers viii
uepenu upon the custom Of particular places and
In kawie 215 tops CardoYn. it was decided that
c moic OF delivery regulated by the practice of the
to the usage at the port of delivery
nge On Common Carriers 3lG expressly says that the