New Orleans daily crescent., 1866-02-19

ehanan & Gilmore. p. ii. Morgan.
J. v. OnaNivia u Co. VS.. Goodrlch " Co'-Nl' M, !
Cohen. L. A. Sheldon. >z+ ~ s1,..gg A.
J SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. HI
w. Gordon 4 Co., appellee, VS.. w. f. Rice, sap-
pellant- Singleton. L. M. Day.
NJ Hoefner, appellee, vs.. Foster Reid, Mary
E. Reid, appellants Foster and E. T. Mer-
rick. Smonds Fenner. cf!g
Cyrot Gentes VS.. Manuel Blasco and Z. d. Bias
CA. F. Stelle. Legardeur. .-.
Henry Laf0n VS.. Mrs d. FL. Jones, executrix. %
Mrs. ID. A. Jones, executrix, plaintiff in rule, vs..
E. Conery, ppellant-Bermudez, W. FL. Hunt
Legardeur, Egan. - .-... &c..
j. ". Coeler vs.. Succession of c. F. Abel-Budd
4 Lambert. Cutler & Thomas.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT. e. tt7
Mary Jane O'Gara VS.. Succession of j. l.. Rid
dell--Bermudez. Hunt 4 Denegre, G Hunt.
Succession Of Wm. Vogel-Castera. Roseus
& Bhillips.
Parham VS.. Parham-Riggs, Belden and Fusel-
er. Egan.
Delmas VS.. Menard & vignaud- Grand.
mont. z5a ~ ya i
more. Hunt Denegre.
THIRD DISTRICT COURT. -.-
EXCEPTIONS
Newman, executor VS.. Pitcher & Goodrich
Lacey. Barrow & Pope
Richard VS.. Aldige--Magne. Castera. 81.
F4,7s RULE. .r
j. Biering VS. Lize Forman--.T. J. & W. H.
Cooley. ,-.s. ~. -..-..,5,.
PRoMIssoRY NOTE CASES
Mrs. Simon, tutrix, VS.. VIM. Barrett-Roselius
& Phillips. Haynes. tsssse EN
j., NJ. Tujaquss VS.. L. Pcheloup-Dufou
Duyigneaud.
Peter Markey vs.. J, Powers-Budd & La mbert.
Ad. Rozier.
P. Clancey VS.. NJ. Keifer-J P Hornor Dal.
sheimer & Buck. ."
A. Ladoux VS.. ]. w. Burhridge & Cot. J. j.
W. II. Cooley FL G. Miller.
s. B. Newman, executor, VS.. Wright & Allen
Lacey. Clarke s. Bayne. t-.@ 5
S. B. Newman, executor, VS.. A. D. Kelly & Co.
Lacey. Clarke & Bayne. -...... -.
S. 8. Newman, executor, vs.. R. c.. Cummings &
Co.-Lacey Hays & Adams. 5
City Of New Orleans, for use, etc., VS.. Charles
City.of New Orleans. for use, etc., VS. H. B. Ben
jamin-Hewes. Grant.
City of New Orleans, for nse, etc., VS.. F. Mar
cadal-Hewes. Grant. $p& sF .& lssr r.
City of New Orleans, for use etc., VS.. John Tye--
Hewes. Grant.
City Of New Orleans, for use ETC., VS. L. T.
Jacobs Il Dussumier-Hewes. Grant.
FOURTH DISTRICT COURT. faa
e@ IA sre RULES. E"si
W. N. Mercer VS.. Brown & Johnson-Hyams g.
Jonas. Durant 4 Hornor ',s+.s.,
Montgomery 4 White vs.. L. L. Matthews & VIM.
W. Matthews-Kennard & Luzenberg. Cooley
Nesmith VS.. Bailey-Voorhies. Billings. 1-
EXCEPTION. ..,-.. ~. -.
j. Israel VS.. Matthias Leyy-Augustin, Belden &
Fuselier,
pRoMIssoRY NOTE CASES. 4F
John Furney VS.. M. ]. De Lizardi-Clarke &
Bayne. Hunt. Morgan, Legardeur.
I. L. Bayne vs.. NJ ] De Lizardi- Bradford & Fin
ney, Hunt. Morgan, Legardeur
W. L. Campbell VS.. N. J. De Lizardi-Bayne,
Hunt. Morgan, Legardeur.
Johanna Huck vs.. Haller & Bro.-Buchanan &
Gilmore. Emerson & Grow.
Peter Marcy VS.. Hyde & Mackie-F -Finney. Tru-
deau. -s g i5.I 27
John Eaton, syndic vs.. NJ. Keiffer-Van Dolsen.
Dasheimer Il Buck. Ia.
Crescent City Bank vs. B. F. Taylor-Mott
Clarke g. Bayne. #' @s-..E '7g
u Frazer. Gilmore Stewart.
H. NJ. Spoford VS.. M. J. DeLizardi-Clarke &
| Bayne. Hunt, Morgan, Legardeur.
Benz. Myers vs.. Isaac Phillips, Leovy.
A. & NJ Voorhies. '.
Horterse soule awidow, VS.. Gourds & Martin-N.
e. Rghtor. Castera Grima.
|. s. Holden q Co. vs.. Williamson & Moody
Singleton Whitaker, Fellows Mills. ,.w
r..- ,t uSArPEALARLE CASES. as D., a. 5.utst s.
Elijah Peale Us. D. Michel--McDonnold. Tissot.
Giovanni Appolino VS.. Widow Ch. Galvani-
Derbes. D. N. Hennen.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT. .
Shelton VS.. Blessey--E. D. Craig. " -
9 PaomssoEr CASES sE- gz -3f
Edward Bure vs.. Herbert Tornee ct als.-Cas-
Daniel Gillen VS.. Patrick Halpin ct Albright.
Mccarthy. &l fs}2
Jules iabatut testamentary executor, VS.. Chas.
w: Allen ct als:-0gden. CLARK Bayne.
Nohlom = Co.-Pierce, Gurley. j. L. Tssot
VIM. O'Hern vs.. Vim. Wren and Maurice Cal
laghan-Bright. Buchanan & Gilmore. 81
Jesse Hencel VS.. W. F. Treyett-Tatum. Shell
burne.
Francis Ready vs.. VIM, and James Jay-Whita-
ker, Fellows q Mills. Race & Foster, Stewart
Wagstaf Smith, for use, ETC., vs.. Bank of Ia
maulipas ct als.-Whitaker, Fellows & Mills.
Handlin.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT.
J. Connolly VS.. F. NJ. Fisk-Clerk of Court.
Moses Lobe VS.. Bark Commerce - Randolph,
Singleton. Harde. s.-
A. Riguoci vs.. Gaetano-Solari & Buisson.
Dreux.
Widow Yogel vs.. A. Reichard, ct al-Dufour.
Bradford, Lea Finney. a..a-s
CONTINUED CASE.
E.. W. Burbank VS.. J. Bloom-Mills. Lacey,
NEW CASES -.s-. .=
Numa Lacoste VS. H. H. Taylor, ct als-Castera,
Tissot. Johnson Denis, Berault Legendre.
/, J.W. Catalongue VS.. P. N. Herwig, ct al-Grand-
mont, Tissot. Hunt & Denegre. =" f- i.''
I'll. F. Hall VS.. R. s.. G. Pasteur--Race, Foster &
E. I. Merrick. Mari & Foute. rt' ~; -. i
Union Bank of Tennessee VS.. Nixon g. Co. and
IOouricn G OO,--DufdHt u HOrQOfs hays d.
Adams. Tt6T t4@ 5&S ffEe %%'
Union Bank of Tennessee VS.. Nixon Il Co-Du-,
rant Hornor. Hays d Adams. s tu.!.
4 g. w. Hendspeth, administrator vs. Geo. W.
Kendal-Randolph Singleton & Hardie. Leovy
NJ. Herman VS.. A. Herman-Lemley. Eggle-
ston. - '..t,r~.
Peet, simms & Co. VS.. Wright & Allen-Breaux
Clarke h Bayne.
P. Pratts vs.. A. P. Noblom-Morgan & New.
L. Tissot.
2 T. W. Reynolds VS.. John S. smonds & Co.
Breaux. Egan. 5i'59
Louisiana Mutual Insurance Company vs. James
NJ. White. Race, Foster u E. S. Merriek. Hays
& Adams -r-.-
Planters Bank vs.. Union ,Bank-Durant
Hornor. Bright
A BAREFooTED BR!DEsaArp.--A fashionable
wedding PARTY was detained for half an hour at the
church, not over month ago, by the following
circumstance One of the bridesmaids.aetermined
to outshine all the other five in the style and ele
gance of her "make up,r and had purchased a
pair of white satin slippers that would have pinch
ed the toes of Cinderella herself After irving the
slippers on, she laid them aside and proceeded
with her toilet. 1t took her several hours to har-
ness herself in her fairy gear, and before she had
arranged the last fold in her dress to her satisfac
tion the carriage drove up to carry her to the
church. Taking last lingering look into the pier
glass she rushed down stairs, bounded into the
carriage, and was ratified rapidly away to the
scene of her anticipated triumph.
In the yestibule our fairy met the rest of the
bridesmaids, and they commenced an inspection
of arms previous to entering the church. The
young lady was mortified beyond expression at