The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-11-24
fr.udulsa. act shown in his departure from Gam.

came down with me on the last trip. knew he
Was coming down with rs he told me so the first
morning We got to Camden. About fifteen or
1t grocery store know they heard the con-
Mr.. Levy told me he was coming back
with me-" -.
This statement is ccrroborated by the evidence
Of the other officers Of the boat which shows that
defendant left Camden openly and not clandes-
timely.
We cannot perceive in the conduct Of the de.
PENDANT, who evidently came to this city to get
anything to warrant the allegation OF
plaintiffs that he had absconded from his residence
10 Arkansas. especially when it is shown that he
left his house. his furniture, his children and his
servants behind him.
We are of opinion that the district Judge did
Ordered that the judgment appealed from be
affirmed with costs.
BY r. K. HOWELL.
No. l3sl-Anne B. Wilkins VS.. Giles & Fergu-
Court-Appeal from the Fourth
District Court of New Orleans.
This Ia q suit against the indorsers of proms-
sorry note, in which the main question presented
test waived" dispense with demand and notice
and convert a conditional into an absolute obliga-
ton on the pant of the indorsers.
1t is conceded that by the Jurisprudence of this
does not dispense with notice to the indorser bat
plaintiffs counsel contend that our jurisprudence
on this point is erroneous not founded on reason
and not in accord with that In other
States and countries, and they refer
to Parsons on Notes and Bills to sustain
their position. We have examined this author
attentively and find that he adopts the doctrine 10
the case OF Coddington W. Davis, Denio's N. Y.
Reports, p. IL, which lie contrary to the doctrine
here but that case was before our predecessors,
and after full consideration they adhered to the
rule laid down by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of the Union Bank vs.. Hyde, 6
Wharton's Rep. 674, which has ever since pre-
vailed here, and we do not see that Mr.. Parsons
has adduced any authority or reasoning beyond
that which was considered by this tribunal, nor
shown that the doctrine recognised in this State
is not in accord with that of most other states
and countries. See Parsons on Notes and Bills,
vol. p. SIC. edition of 1867, and contra | 3l2,
6 40, IA 305. Story on Notes S az. Barly
on bills 245.
The argument of plaintiffs counsel, though
justly entitled TO much credit and the authorities
cited by him, are not sufficient to overthrow rule
Of commercial law, sanctioned by repeated uni
form judicial action, and entering into mercantile
transactions for more than twenty years.
The question as to the data of the waiver,
whether at, before. or after maturity, cannot
avail plaintiff in this case, as, under the general
on her to show the date, if important, and no evil
dence TO this point was adduced.
1t is therefore ordered that the judgment APP
pealed from be reversed, and that there be judg.
ment Diminishing plaintiff q demand, with Costs in
both courts.
e. BY A. J. TALIAFERR0.
No. l37s-Nelligan Won Zinken vs.. George
from the Fifth District Court
of New Orleans.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant is in
debted to them in the of 5000 with interest at
s per cent. per annum from the 18th February,
1896, as shown by promissory note drawn by
defendant and made payable on demand to their
order. The defendant filed an exception, averring
want of amcable demand. PLAINTIFF had judg-
ment in their favor. and the defendant has APP
pealed. 1t seems clear that the defense cannot
avail the defendant. even as to the question of
costs, for he has not offered to comply with the
demand, but on the contrary resists it.
Ordered that the Judgment Of the district court
be affirmed. with costs further that plaintiffs re-
cover thirty-fve dollars damages from defendant
for frivolous appeal.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE J. @. rALIAFERRo.
1Se2-W. s. Pike vs. State OF Louisiana-Appeal
from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans.
The plaintiff, with others, in 1857 became leseees
of the State Pententsry for the term of five years.
This suit, authorized by an act OF the State Legis
ature In 1867 Is instituted to recover the sum OF
s54i23 which the plaintiff, averrng himself to be
the sole owner OF the claim, alleges to be unpaid.
Citation was served upon the governor of the
State at the time, but no appearance was made
fault was rendered and afterwards made final. A
devolutivelappeal was taken on the part Of the
State after the lapse of several months. The
authorization to the plaintiff to institute this suit
clearly contemplated full and fair investigation
of the claim set up by him, contradctorily with
the proper representative of the State. Nest of
the evidence introduced we think inadmissible,
and as a whole the proof is insufficient. We con-
clude that justice requires the to be remanded
TO the lower court.
IL is therefore ordered. adjudged and decreed
h the Judgment of the districtcourt be annulled
avoided and reversed. 1t is further ordered that
the case be remanded to the lower court for
further proceedings according to law, the plaintiff
and appellee paying the costs Of this appeal.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE TALIAFERRo.
l4O6-Tbos. ]. Cooley vs.. Joseph R. Shannon ct
al, Maurice Langhorn, appellant. Appeal from
the Third District Court of New Orleans.
This suit is brought on two promissory notes
falling due respectively in February and March,
tees given. The controversy seems to be con-
fined entirely to the note that fell due In March,
the defendant, who is the payer and indorser, al.
leging that he was not served with legal notice OF
protest. The plaintiff had Judgment for the
amount of both notes, and the defendant, Lang
horn, appealed.
The notes were protested by different notaries
The notary who protested the note due in Feb
ruary, served the notice on Lalghorn at his resi-
dence in New Orleans. The other notary upon
making protest of the note due in March, served
notice by letter addressed to Langhorn at New
Orleans and placed the letter in the fostoffice Of
this city, and likewise by duplicate notice to the
same party delivered blythe notary to j. NJ. Travis
at the Office of Joseph R. Shannon Il Co.
1t is in proof that Langhorn had q residence In
New Orleans. 1t is shown also that his name ap-
pears in the city directory for the year 1861. We
cannot understand by the term "headquarters'
that the person sought to be rendered liable as
indorser had 9 fixed place of business in New Or.
leane.
Service Of notice was made in one case at his
residence in the city Q month before. The state
of facts presented, we think. negatives the idea
that any proper diligence was used to notify the
defendant, and it follows that he Is thereby re-
leased.
1t is therefore ordered. adjudged and decreed
that the judgment of the district court be annued,
avoided and reversed as to the defendant, Lang
horp that plaintiff recover of defendants. Jos. r.
Shannon land Maurice Langhorn, in solido, the
sum Of 1880 rs with s per cent. interest thereon
from 9th February. 1862, until paid that the de-
PENDANT, NJ. Lsnghorn, have judgment 10 his favor
as to the tote for $l703 Is, releasing him from all
obligation to pay the same. the plaintiff and APP
pelee to pay costs of appeal, and all other costs
to be paid by defendant.
Chao Pha Monekout, King of Siam, is dead. he
was born about 1905. and was aged twenty years
when his father, Phen Din Klang, expired.
Though really entitled to the crown, as eldest son
Of the queen. he was deprived Of 1t BY brother