New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1867-06-11

evidence did not warrant a joint judg-
ment
willoz vs. Ferranti. Judgment for plain
tiff reversed, and judgment ordered for
defendant.
Meekins, Kelly & Co., VS.. their curators.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
This question was decided upon the princi
pie of the fifteenth section of the bankrupt
law. The State law is now repealed.
In the matter of the city of New Orleans
claiming appropriation of private property
to open Royal and Chartres streets. The
court below awarded the jurors $500 for
their services as experts. One of them OBJ
tanned a rule for execution for his $3.50, and
the same was made absolute, and execution
issued. The city applied for Il writ of pro-
hibition in this proceeding. Writ granted,
and rule reversed. The court held that
experts and other like officers could not sue
out separate executions for their costs or
fees. They abide the event Of the suit.
State VS.. Tucker, convicted of murder in
lberville parish. Judgment reversed, and
cause remanded for new trial
Folger & Sons vs.. Slaughter 4 Smith
Judgment affirmed. The question was of
domicil and the court held that those per-
sons who left their domicil during the war
avoiding the seat of hostilities, but without
any intention to remain, though they might
vote and commit other acts of citizenship
in the new locality during such temporary
change, yet it would not affect the question
OF domicll, other facts proving no intention
to change.
H. Posey VS.. Matingly-Price of q sale
decided on the merits of Wainright VS..
Bridges. Judgment reversed.
Courtenay VS.. Sheldon-Action based upon
an exchange of slaves Judgment approved
on the principles decided in Wainright VS..
Bridges.
NJ. Berwin VS.. steamer Matanzas-Suit on
| a contract of affreightment. The question
was raised of the exclusive jurisdiction in
| the United States federal courts. The
| supreme court reversed the case and re-
manded the same to be dismissed for want
| of jurisdiction upon the principles decided
| in the case of the Moses Taylor. Published
| in the REPUBLICAN On Tuesday last-RE-
| PORTER.
| McCraCken VS.. Pool.-Action on a draft.
| Defense it was given for confederate money.
The plaintiff admitted in evidence that fact,
but objected to parOl evidence to vary the
written contract. The court held the rule
does not apply in this case What cur.
rency was issued by the confederacy was
not money or of its value, as it was not even
a de fdctO government. Its legality as 8
circulating medium at any time cannot re
ceive judicial recognition. Judgment at
frmed for defendant.
Samory VS.. Montgomery on I
| note and mortgage procedure by seizure
and sale. The defendant was absent and I
curator dd hoe was appointed to represen
him. Defendant left the city in 1861, Wa
absent in 1862 when the proceedings wer'
instituted. and remained absent until lS6
in Virginia with his family. The sheriff re
turned the citation that defendant was alb
sent, and he could not be found in the State
No act of procuration to any one was left 0
record. p. E. Benford as his agent executed
the mortgage; but P. Z. Benford was in lS6.
judge of the supreme court of the State un
der confederate rule, and had left the cit,
when it fell, and defendant must hav,
known it. Defendant did not re
turn himself. He left no housekeepe,
or other person on whom citation
could be served, The court held h
was not asresident, and the appointment of
and service upon the curator dd hoe wa
valid. The defendant availed himself o
the privilege of appeal within two years a
= au absentee. The court said it could nc
l well see how he could claim to be an al
. sentee for the advantages of appeal, an
S avoid the fact of being an absentee for ser
vice Of citation. Judgment affirmed.
d. n. Hennen VS.. Frigerio. Judgment 70
, $1,000 counsel fees. Judgment affirmed.
} State VS.. Kennedy. Question as to the col
stitutionality of the tax on sales of mel
: chandise. Judgment affirmed, as in col
traventiOn of article l24 constitution {
the State of Louisiana, and the tax d.
I cided to be Illegal
State of Louisiana VS.. the Louisiana Stat
/. Bank. Argument resumed by Pierre Soult
:. esq.,, and will be concluded this day.
e sixth District Court of New Orleans.
State of Louisiana VS.. New Orleans, Jacl
son, and Great Northern Railroad Compan
:, Yesterday at twelve o'clock, the Louisiar
t directors, through their counsel, in Il
It sixth district court, filed exceptions al
d answer to the writ of quo warrauto obtain'
d in behalf of the governor and attorn'
r, general of the State.
r, In the exceptions the defendants deny Il
IL right ofany person to question the authorl
by which General Beauregard holds b
r, office as president, except such person hii
"a self claims to be entitled to that office. Th'
9. also except to the petition because 1t does n
a. appear from the petition itself that the ca
i. didates voted for by the State and city we
a eligible to the office. Lastly, the petite
va is excepted to because j. Madison Wells
of not governor and B. l.. Lynch is not ATTIC
~ ~ ney general of the State, and are witho
#. authority to proceed against the respon
4. ents.
Of In the answer, the respondents aver tn
70 the directors in Office were the only perso
N el 'ble to the office voted for, and q
80 therefore entitled to their seats, notwi
20 standing they were elected by . minor
vote.
The Mississippi directors not having be
found, an attorney dd hoe was appointed
!, represent them, and the case was Continu
| ~