The daily comet. [volume] (Baton Rouge, La.) 1850-1856, 1854-04-22


work.
Important Decision,
Establishing the 1Iechanic,s Leln
The subscriber having been subjec
ted to vexatious, and as he believes
q malicious suit for the past two years
in which the interest and right o
artixans and mechanics in the State
were involved. congratulates his broth
er mechanics, throughout the State, on
the decision Of the Supreme Court
fully establishing the right contended
for, which is herewith submitted fol
their perusal.
The entire proceedings with the
circumstances, in which the suit orig.
mated will be published in pamphlet
form as soon as the papers aud accom-
paning afiidavits can be properly com.
piled. w. +. TUNNARD.
Baton Rouge, April 21st 1854.
SUPREME CoURT OF THE STATE or
LouisIANA.-The Court met Monday,
March, 18th 1S54-present their Honors
Thomas Slidell, Chief Justice, Cornelius
VOORHEES,, A. NJ. Buchanan, A. N. Ogden
and James G. Campbell, Associate Justices.
(3O3l)
CHAs. CAYARRE, applee, vs.. w. F. Tun-
nard, appt. Appeal from the 9Th Judicial
District Court, East Baton Rouge.
In this cause the Court this day deliver.
ed their opinion in writing in the words
and figures following:
The petitioner alleges, that on the 9th
day Of September 1852, the defendant. W.
+. fnnard, though thereto demanded, re-
fused to deliver the possession OF four
wheeled carriage belonging to him, and that
ne detairs the same illegally and malici-
ously. lie prays for the restitution OF the
carriage, and for $1,000 damages for its de-
tention. The defence is general denial
and special denial that his conduct to-
wards petitioner has been malicious or il.
legal. Alleging that the suit OF plaintiff is
malicious and ungrounded in law and
brought with the intent Of annoying and
harassing hiui-he claims damages in re-
The case was tried by Jury
and in conformity with their verdict
Judgement was rendered. in plaintiffs favor
-decreeing the return Of the carriage and
sentencing defendant to pay twenty-liv !
tollars as damages and the costs of suit.
From the Judgement thus rendered, this
'ppeal mas BEEN prosecuted. Though the
ssues presented by the pleadings are sim.
lie and easy Of solution, this case has be.
ONE much complicated by the manner in
which the trial was conducted in the Court
Glow. Testimony not strictly admissible
nder the plead'ngs has been offered and
eceived without objection, the effect of
Which has been to change materially the
'sucs as made IN.
The facts Of the case as disc losed by the
scord, are substantially as follows plain.
II on the morning of the 9th of Septem Der
mt his carriage to the shop of the defend
NJ, VINO Is an artisan, to be repared-the
pairs were made, and proved to be worth
NO dollars, the sum charged, defendent re-
'sed to deliver to plaintiff the carriage
ntil ne should be paid the sum. The plain
II refused to do SO, but proHerrd to, and
:tually did deposit with Dufroca. Mayor
ID Justice OF the Peace Of Baton Rouge,
e sum demanded subjected to the claim of
'fendant upon his establishing his right to
lhe money thus deposited was never
manded by defendant and was Withdrawn
i. the 18th OF the same month by plaintiff.
!he defendant maintained that under the e
ticle 1854 OF the Civil Code, he had {
mt to keep possession of the carriage un. I
payment OF the price OF repairs, has ex-
pied to the charge of the Judge, who 7
'tructed the Jury that defendant had no [
IN light, but that it should have been de-
cred up Immediately on demand and that n
Jury consequently were bound to rem b
verdict in favor of plaintiff for the &
rage and for such damages as they "
sht consider ne had suffer by its deten- ii
We think the Court erred in charging the t,
" that the defendent had no right to de- b.
II the carriage until payment for the re- IL
RS was made. The right necessarily re- OF
Is from the End paragraph by article 31s4 b,
the Civil Code, which expressly accords til
privilege to the debts Of workman o
'rtizan for the price of his labor on the of
yeable, which he has repaired or made pt
ne thing continues still in his possess ia
l.. M
his rule the artizans dron de retention an
erived from the Roman Law (see Foot
d foss Pue ell Hy Vol. l. No. 1854, and -
nalaseous to the particular lien given in
cases by the common law, which their
Eers define to be "rhe right to retain r.
property OF another for charge on &C. \
1t OF labor besto wed upon it 2 Kent ~
!. 634, which right as has been held bv ~.
Courts, continues while the possession io'
tanned, but is lost by voluntary sur n.
er. ia