The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-03-02
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HOWE.

terday. The cases on the docket were called and
fixed.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HOWE.
No. 430-Wm. G. Lyle vs. Patterson V. Whicher
and JnO. H. Henshaw appellants. Appeal from
Seventh Judicial District Court, parish OF West
Feicisna, Wicklife Il Packwood for appellee,
and Collins & Leake for appellants.
1t appears by the record in this case that the
note sued on was given in part payment for GER
tain slaves. In accordance, therefore, with the
decisions Of our predecessors which have become
the settled Jurisprudence Of the State, the judg-
ment from which the defendants have appealed
must be set aside.
Wainwright va. Bridges, l9 An. 234 Austin va.
Sandel 10 an sos. Haisey vs.. Hoefner, 10 An. $40.
1t lie therefore ordered and adjudged that the
judgment appealed from be avoided aud reversed,
and that there be Judgment in favor OF defendants
with costs IN bOth-courts.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. O5S-In the matter of the tutorship of John
G. Scott. Appeal from the parish court of Tensas.
FaTrar 4 Reeves for tutor and appellant; Julius
Aroui for appellee and opponent.
John F. Goodrich, tutor of the minor John q.
Scott, filed an account of his administration,
which contains only the proceeds Of certain cot
ton sold in 1861, 1868, 1854 and 1866, from which
be deducts certain expenses incurred in saving
the said cotton from being burned, hauling, ship
ping, etc, and of the balance he allows the minor
one third, from which he deducts bill OF the
private expenses of the minor and his slaves,
leaving a bala ce in favor of the tutor. The said
John g. Scott, having just become OF age, opposed
the hOmUlogs Of the account alleging that bis
tutor had failed 10 account for certain specifically
described movable property belonging 10 him,
and taken charge of by said tutor, and that with
out authority Of law the latter had formed an
agricultural partnership between them and worked
the land Of both with an equal number Of slaves,
stock implements ETC., Of each, with which
much larger amount of Gotten had been made
than set out 10 the account all of which makes his
said tutor indebted to him 10 the sum of SIS ,00G,
for hfnhh a gEo fuN.rr win inta and
portgsge.
On the trial OF the opposition bill of exception
was taken TO the competency OF the tutor as a'wit
ness in his own behalf, on toe ground that theIaw
required written evidence to establish the correct
ness of a TUTORS account. This Law of 1868, page
269, does not make such requirement, but permits
any ore of proper understanding TO be witness
of any covenant or fact whatever in civil matter,
with the UACcptUu thsS q hasbEnd and vito shall
not testify for or against each other, and it repeas
all laws contrary 10 its provisions. The tutor was
a competent witness; but We think ths evidence
in the record is so mesger and unsatisfactory aud
the accounts filed so confused and improperly eK.
planned, that justice TO both parties requires the
cause TO be remanded to enable them to show how
their accounts really stand.
We do not think the general statement of the
tutor that Items which are enumerated in said
account. which go TO make up the aggregate ex-
pentes of said $l942 80, sworn to as correct"
makes proof Of The various and unusual items OF
said account OF expenses for saving, rebaling,
that the cotton was made by and belonged to a
paTtDeTship, or the parties jointly, as adopted by
both parties. The plantation expenses should be
separated from the individual expenses, aud after
deoucting the former from the proceeds of the
crop. these proceeds should be proportionately
divided. and the individual or private personal ex.
peBses Of the minor deducted from his portion.
His individual property. which passed into the
control of the tutor, should be delivered to him or
accounted for
II is therefore ordered that the Judgment ap.
ipealed from be reversed. and the cause remanded
Tor further proceedings according to Law; the ap-
peee TO pay costs of appeal.
BY CHIEF JUSTICE J. T. LUDELING.
No. l6G9-E. R. Beckwith VS.. G. NJ. Pierce ct al.
Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District Court
of East Baton Rouge.
White & Robertson for plaintiff and appellee
Dunn & Heron for defendant and appellant.
The plaintiff sued for the balance due on &C.
count OF supplies furnished during the year 1865
for the of the plantation of the defendant, aud
he claimed a privilege upon the crop raised upon
the plantation in that year. At the instance of
plaintiff the cotton on the place and twenty bales
Of cotton, found in the possession of jackson i
Rosenfeld, were sequestrated.
The defendant, Pierce, fled general denial
and plea that he and plaintiff lived on different
sides of the Lies Of military occupation at the
time the trading is alleged to have been carried
on. ard the trading was prohibited.
Jackson 4 Rosenfeld allege that they were the
owners and possessors Of the twenty bales Of cot
ton 81 the time they were sequestrated, and that
said cotton was not raised on defendants plants.
ton. Mrs. Pierce, the wife OF defendant, inter-
Vened and claimed that the property on the plan.
tstion which was sequestrated belonged TO her.
There was judgment in favor Of Jackson aud
Rosenfeld, dissolVng the sequestraton as TO the
twenty bales Of cotton claimed by them and
against the plaintiff, for six hundred dollars dam
ages.
There was judgment against the intervenors
dismissing her Intervention and in favor II the
plaintiff against her for the sum Of 1884 "a, with
interest at the rate OF i've per cent per annum
from the second cay of November 1865.
There was also a judgment against the defen-
dant for $3032 rs, with FIVE per cent. interest
thereon, from % November, 1865, with privilege
to secure payment Of the judgments against the
defendant and intervenor, on the cotton raised on
the evidences Plantation The defendant
ard the plaintiff have appealed. The intervenor
has not appealed. neither has she prayed for any
amendment Of the judgment against her.
We cannot interfere with the judgment against
her, therefore.
The testimony offered to prove that the trading
between the parties was carried on under permits
in accordance with the regulations of the secre-
tsry of the treasury of the United States does not
satisfy us of that fact. Doyles, one Of the clerks
of plaintiff, says: " Before the surrender 1t was
necessary TO obtain permits before they could
take out goods. Mr.. Beckwith W1s not in the
habit Of allowing goods TO leave his store without
the necessary permits"
Another witness says: Those permits sCere
generally produced. stating that the goods were
for plantation supplies" ID. W. Lucas says: 81
was connected with the treasury department.
To obtain permits the parties were to live within
ten miles OF town. They were allowed enough
for their families. In obtaining permits parties
were required 10 make affidavit that the supplies
we're for their families and not to be transferred
Mr.. Beckwiih frequently brought lists Of goods
that he wished TO send out that were over the
amount. and telling rs IL lods 10 his Advantage,
trOtld persuade us to give the permits, saying he
would be responsible that it was all right"
z. Purnell says Mr.. Pierce received a great
many shoes, bale Of cotton, wines and liquors
he received no SALT The shoes he received were
fine shoes. morocco, the greater part women's
shoes. There was good deal of cslicoes. These
goods we're sent out by Mr.. Beckwith and traded
of. At the cessation Of hostilities many Of these
articles were left on the hands of Mr.. Pierce. Il
is not proved positively thai the permits obtained