The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-03-26

1 SUPREME CouRT OF Brander.
! Williams & Co, VS.. Isaac Lum. Lea, J.-This
wasra st,it for a balance due by planter upon
| a factors account for advances, commission,
supplies furnished, &c. The defendant, in ad-
dition to the general denial, pleaded illegality
of certain items in the account, alleging that the
same was made UP Of hsnrious charges OF in
terest, commission and of compound interest.
and Of incorrect charges for drayage, storage,
labor, weighing, and fire and river insurance
| Per curiam. As respects the interest account,
She plaintiffs are placed in this dilemma: If tho
defendant has promised to pay the interest at
8 per cent, together with the commission at e
per cent, for advancing, as set forth in the ae
count, the contract is clearly usngious, and the
plaintiffs can recover nothing but the principal
sum advanced II, however, there was no
agreement with reference to the payment ofin-
terest, and the plaintiffs hare merely claimed
more than the law allows, they can only re-
cover the legal interest to which they would be
entitled upon advances by them, as factors, to-
wit: S per cent Upon careful consideration
of the evidence, we think, the defendant did not
at any time acquiesce unconditionally In The
account as it is sued upon; and that as there
was no contract for usurious interest the plain
tiffs are entitled to recover legal interest upon
their advances from the respective dates at
which they were made
| With reference to the charges for drayagc.
storage, labor, weighing and insurance, the
Iplaintiffs were interrogated under oath whether
they had paid these charges as detailed and TO
whom. The answers to these interrogatories
are unsatisfactory, at least so far as they relate
1 to drayage, labor, weighing, &c, for which 3
charge Of As cents per bale is made IN eachof
the accounts Of sales rendered. The plaintiffs
| do not say unequiyocally that they paid this
amount. II they did not pay it, they had no
f right to claim it from the defendant. 1fthey
| did, they should have said SO in terms not open
to misconstruction. They say that they have
a contract by the year with the cotton press for
! the storage Of allthe cotton forwarded to them,
which includes labor and drayage. There was
nothing in their answer from which it would
necessarily be inferred that the plaintiffs were
subjected to an an outlay of 45 cents per bale
fer expenses incurred in the drayage, storage,
weighing, DC, of the Defendants cotton. Nor
lis the court informed by what process Of calcu
lation the plaintiffs considered themselves enti-
tied to charge the defendant with the precise
sum of 45 cents per bale for drayage, storage,
labor, dc. The defendant had a right to know
! how this sum was paid and to whom He was
entitled to the benefit Of any contract which
his mandatory may have made on his behalf,
and he was at least entitled to such an expla-
nation Of the terms of this contract, as might
satisfy him that the contractor realized no pro-
/ fit by the arrangement at his expense.
As respects the items for fire and river in
surance, the answers Of plaintiffs are not such
as to enable the court to ascertain or de-
termine precisely the rights of the defend
ant. The defendants not informed in reply to
his nterregatories in reference thereto, in what
| office hiscotton was insured, nor what amount
of dividend, if any, in scrip, or money, would
have been due to him under a fair apporton-
tnent Of the gross sum received by the plaintiffs
under the open policies which they say they
are in the habit Of taking ont to cover the ship
ments Of all cotton made TO them. AS the de-
fendant IS charged with the premiums, it is but
fair that he should be credited with at least the
| value of such amount Of scrip as under a fair
apportionment he would have been entitled TO
receive.
The dharges for drayage, labor, storage,
| weighing and insurance and the commission for
advancing must therefore be rejected and the
interest reduced from 8 to per cent.
IMPORTANT 70 STEAMBOAT OWNERS. .-1the t.
States district court, at Jefferson city, during
the present term, decided question in rela-
ton to the law governing the sale Of boats,
which upsets entirely the views heretofore en-
tertained by many of our lawyers, and most Of
those interested in steamboats,. It appears that
the case in question was, in substance, about
as follows; The steamer Henrietta was seized
under the act Of the general assembly III this
State concerning boats and vessels, and sold by
the sheriff, under The direction Of the court OF
common pleas. Cyrus Matthews became the
purchaser. After she was sold and delivered
to him, Messrs. IS. Harris u Co., of Galena,
Ill, filed their libel in the U. S. district court
against said boat. for stores and supplies fur
nished her prior to her seizure and sale by the
sheriff of st. Louis county Matthews inter
vened, and resisted the claim of libplants, on
the ground that the seizure and sale by the
sheriff Invested all prior existing liens, and that
the purchaser at the sheriff's sale acquired a
good title to the boat, divested of all liens
whatever. For the libelants it was insisted that
the State had no authority to pass anr law
which could divest lien existing in admiralty,
and that the effect of the sale by the sheriff
was to divest the owners of all their interest in
the BOAT, and also all persons residing in the
State, but as TO foreign creditors who had liens
N admiralty, they were in no way prejudiced
by the sale.
Judge Wells delivered very able opinion
and declared the law as contended for by
the FbYlants, and rendered Judgment for the
amount claimed. Isl. Louis Rep.
The Little Rock (Arkansas) Gazette con-
tains an account Of a singular noise heard in
the vicinity Of Clarksyille, Arkansas, on the
go g g Of February It's variously described as
like e blast in 4 well, the explosion Of meteor
Or a single distant clap Of heavy thunder, in
some place attended with a rumbng noise and
q sensible vibration OF the earth The noise
was heard within an area Of some two hundred
miles in diameter. It's cause had not been GER
tainly aseertained. Some had attributed it to
q yolcanic eruption on a mountain in thecoun-
y Of Scott; others, to an eruption in johnson
near Pittsburg, where it has been dis
covered that an eruption has recently taken