The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-03-20
The Courts.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT.-No. 6s6-A.
J. Mansfield, E. E. Norton, assignee, VS.. Margaret
ID. Allan, Sosthene Allan. The proceedings in
this case have grown out OF an Injunction issued
by this court 70 stay the execution of Judgment
rendered by the honorable the Sixth District
Court of the parish of Orleans In the suit of NJ D.
Allan vs.. her husband, on the 10Th day of April,
1865, and the subsequent order granted by this
court 10 Henry ID. stone, attorney of Norton the
general assignee in bankruptcy, to sell the Aus
traliaD' plantation, situated in the parish of West
Baton Rouge, ss the property Of Mansfield, bank
rupt, whose right TO the property is said to have
originated IN bill OF sale written by Mansfield in
his own office, signedlby himself and transferred to
Stone, II Ia alleged. for professional services rem.
dered him. There appears to have been no notice
Of the proceedings served upon anybody whose
rights would be affected By the Injunction and the
order of sale.
1t appears that the Australian plantation. sit.
usted in the parish of West Baton Rouge is and
has been the property of Mr.. Sosthene Allan for
long number OF years, aud that on the 10th day
Of February, 1865, bysct passed before Adolph
Boudousque, notary public in this city, he leased
his property, the plantation in litigation, to A. s.
Mansfield, for term OF two years for the consid-
Grafton OF $4,000 per aDuum cash. That In order
TO make crop on the place IN the condition il
was then IN, a large amount of money would have
90 s9e vas as y seed
procured anywhere in the vicinity and as the
management, under the control of Mansfield. was
=
slder his loss by II as exceeding $40 600.
After the expiration of the lease il Cd pears that
the plantation was carried on for the benefit of
the owner and Mansfield. and there was an agree
ment to sell oDe-haf, and the price fixed on TO
the satisfaction of the parties, on which $4,000 was
paid and receipt taken declaring that fact but
whether for want OF means or other the Dur.
chase was not completed. Whether the arrange
ment for one-half the place was not to the salts.
faction OF hanshelc, and that title for the whole
would be more acceptable TO him. Is not clearly
established, but that he wished to make an Offset
to the pay ment of the purchase price, a claim for
supplies furnished. said to amount to s73 O0O
which were furnished at his own risk and for his
own benefit. broke of all negotiation for the COM
pleton Of the sale.
whether the court erred in granting the injunc-
ton to stay the execution of the judgment OF the
District Court of the state. or acted adversely and
10 accordance with law, Ia question we feel no
disposition to pass our opinion upon. Neither do
we feel disposed, with the facts now before as, 70
give an opinion on the order Of sale issued by this
couu on the application of Mr.. II. ID. stone, at
torr4y for Mr.. Norton the assignee. All these
fscts, We feel satisfied will be fully discussed at
the proper time by the able counsel engaged on
either side.
We would not say this much on the subject just
now had il not been for the notorety given II and
interest manifested by the members of the legal
profession. Messrs. Merrick and Stone are coun-
sci for Mr.. Mansfield, and Campbell, Spodord 4
Campbell. and Hays q New are for the defendant.
FIRST DISTRICT CouKr-Judge Abel yesterday
sentenced the following prisoners:
Charles Rose, found guilty Of larceny, to six