New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-01-23
Ghe Courts.
Gases Set for Trial This. Day

SUPREME COURT.
NJ. a. Calongue VS.. Mrs. ia Rowan; I; Ernest !.
Wenck, L. Castera. ..
Alfred Kearny vs.. J. Q. Nixon r. ma :. May y
Co.. garnshees; Geo. L. Bright, J: Ad. moAiet 1as.
Clemence Jaquinett vs.. Sophie Boutron; L. Gas
Henry II. Walsh vs. Reuben Kinkerbuckerl
Dunn and Heron, J. G. Fuqua. -,
James 7; Allen vs. Julien Maury; J. Q, a. Eel
L. O. Mohan VS.. Steamboat Olive Branch "a h
Captain and owners; w. W. Handihl' :" a. H.
Hunt. !. ~ !. =. - y
ner, S. J. and A. G. Semmes, Edward Barrel' " H.
Terry. 81, ,,a -,
Testamentary Executors Of the last wiz ana sl tes
lament Of I. 2. Slater vs.. P. 0. Donneh' rose
Illus and Fellowes, w. Fl. Hunt.
Same vs.. 7. Newhall; same attorneys.
Same vs. @. E. Cato Co.; same attorneys
FIRST DISTRICT COURT.
The State of Louisiana vs.. E. Cox. sf-
The State of Louisiana VS.. Conrad HePe.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT.
r. Distel VS.. Barnet s. Huber; Budd Lambert,
L. Castera, ]. w. Dirhammer, A. Grima,, ~,
Blanchin d Greaud vs.. Joseph Juvehai' L. Jas
terra, Sambola Ducros. of c..+o
Succession of Mellaerts vs. Petition Vi Seate
Auditor E. Bermudez, A. Robert.
| j. W. enman VS.. Thos. Sloe, executor Vi "oou
| Hunt & Denegre, d. Rawle.
| THIRD DISTRICT COURT. 81 s.
/ W
S. Lacey, G. Dufour.
| Aug. Larson VS.. Mrs. Lanaux, tutr,A a. Aaris
P. Duclas & Co, vs. Citizens Mutual Insurance a
Company Roselius and Phillips, L. Cas'efa' ueo'
L. Bright
| FOURTH DISTRICT COURT.
Robert Mott, VS. NJ. Jacobs; G. Breaux' 1. L.
Rudolphe Kuntze, VS. City of New Orleans E.J.
Wenck, S. II. Hewes.
| Mary Noll, vs.. Andrew Mangold, v. +. BUCK
7. l.. Lemey and Flower !. :
Daniel Edwards vs.. Leon Berbait nIeryenfop mtrha1
of D. Lopez; Collins and Kerr, D. u. miscneh' -
w. Dirhammer. ~.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
Pierre Castac VS.. John Condor; L. oastefa
| Buchanan & Gilmore. s.tF /,
| Michael Gernon vs.. Ben Stewart; y. Dufour
| Lacey, NAPLES and Kellogg.
| Edmond Guerin VS.. Thomas Shore D. n Y an
| Dolsen, r. L.. Preston.
Consolidated Association of Planters OF Lonisi-
ana VS.. j. B. Smith & Co.; Jules Layefghe, Miche
& Kountz, Elmore & King.
| M. W. and s. G. Kennedy VS.. Le0nlhe Cazels
j. W. Drhammer, J. L. Tissot.
| Michael Gernon vs. Sarah A. Trawlok Y. Du
four, Whitaker, Fellows & Mills
Armand Mercier vs. New Lusitanos nenefoleh
Association; G. Dufour, Sambola q puSros. D. q,
Marion Cassell vs. New Orleans and Dayou oara
Mail Co.; Whitaker, Fellows & Mills, morgan ano
New.
Joseph P. Henry vs. Same same attorneys
| SIXTH DISTRICT oOURT.
| W. A. Kowaski vs.. Metropolitan Insurance Com,
REain11y REi11yy Emerson and Grow Whitaker 1sn0ss ana
| W. A. Kowalski VS.. Columbia Insurance Com
pany; Emerson and Grow, Whitaker, feloWs aho
| Mills.
Thomas H. Durant VS.. DuLanglos; Durant d
| Hornor, Budd and Lambert o...,.
| I. G. Leche VS.. P. Riyiere ct al; Cutter Sau
cier. o
Edward Pullen Va. John S. Woodward; s. J.
i IT. Rrinht
! SUPREME CouRT-ooNDENsED DECISIONS.
| Patrick McGinigan, appellant, vs.. John Ochig,
leniek, appellee. Appeal from the Seaehd @ Dis
trict Court Of New Orleans. The pialltlmm u Claims
of defendant the sum of one Thousand S4 een o
note of the defendant dated February lesn' Aooz'
payable sixty days after date.
We are OF opinion that the defendanI mas ialied u
to prove the Illegal consideration, as ~ ni,h ~,
| legged in his answer. 1t is therefore olaeIe1 any
decreed, that the judgment of the District Conf,
be annulled and avoided, and that tlls ue!enuaht
pay to the plaintiff the sum of one tnousana 10 vol,
lars, with interest at per cent. per anh9m, IRON
the 18th Of February 1862, till paid ana cost o.
Succession Of j. Y. De Egana. This case came
up on motion to dismiss. The whole uecsion a., is
very lengthy. The concluding portions az , s IN,
der these circumstances, and after oateiui aha
minute examination of the facts, we are con
strained to say that by their own Voiun.afy hols
and deeds the appellants have ful!y anu toIa, Ia.
pletely ratified the execution of tht Juagi4iene py
the executor, and have, consequently, Pa WV n m5.i
the right Of appeal granted to them py iAw. VI
dered that the appeal be dismissed ana appei-
| lants pay costs. 1,.,
| Clement Fl. De Bruey's administratomrs rs vs.. Wil-
liam Alfred Freret appeal from the SIKH Dlstrict
| Court of New Orleans. This is an appeai from an
| order of seizure and sale. Ordered ana aecreed
that the fiat of the District Judge gian'ing IN .he
order of seizure and sale, be set asioe' ana tle
plaintiffs pay costs in both courts. -
Fellows & Mills VS.. Bank OF New orleans. Ing
plaintiff brought forward the suit for q
services. 1t is ordered, adjudged and aectesu snat
the Judgment of the lower Court pe ainehosu, =,
and that plaintiff recover of the delenaahts, tne
sum of $500 instead of $4O0 as allowed peioW,
with legal interest from judicial denaiu ~ posh
Courts. l = -,
A. T. Johns ct ais. appellants, Vs. ". :: race,
appellee. Appeal from the Second DistIict Court
of New Orleans. 1t is ordered and auJuagea, and
decreed thatthe judgment of the plstIics Coutrt "
be avoided, annulled and reversed, aho y that lne
plaintiff be recognized as the heir o. oaraa =! Ann
Johns the deceased wife of defepda,,it-a s that
the will of said deceased be annuea 80 iar as "
disposes of more than two-thirds oi ule properly
Of which she died possessed, and that liqnida-
ton and partition be made according 70 Jaw OF the
succession OF said deceased wife, and OF .he com.
munity WHICH existed between said delehaant ana
Sarah Ann Johs. II
LoNa PEAYERs,- -Blder Knapp, speaking oflong
prayers, once sad y" When Peter was endeayor-
ing TO walk upon the water to meet MS Master,
and WAS aDout sinking, had his suppncauon peen
as long as the lntroduct to MODERN prayers.