The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-04-15
The Courta.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURT.-United States
ex rel. c. A. Weed. This case was called up;
Alex. Walker for relator, Semmes Mott for w.
N. Smallwood; when, after hearing the plead
ipgs. evidence and argument, the court took time
Myra G. Gaines, Caleb Cushing subrogsted, vs..
called and continued till 18th inst.
United States va. Bouliguy and al. J. B. Wei
ler Esq., has taken rule on the district attorney,
returDsble 18th inst, to show cause Why the judg
ment in this case should not be opened up and
leave given to defendants to answer.
Arstide Mary and j. H. Oglesby were appointed
freeholders to form jury list OF one hundred
names.
The Grand Jury yesterday found a true bill
against Eugene Tisdale late collector of the third
district of Louisiana, for embezzlement, as fol-
lows, viz:
of internal revenue, third collection district. IS
internal revenue tax on 1900 bales cotton shipped
from Trenton By Oliver & Mcclure, merchants,
between June 3, 1867, and 18th June, 1868.
Embedding SIS 200, internal revenue tax on
1870 bales cotton shipped from Trenton by D. I.
Heard 4 Co.. merchants, between January 3, 1868,
and 18th April, 1868.
Embezzing S1l 100, as internal revenue tax on
l4l2 bales cotton skipped from Trenton by STAN
differ, Bush Il Co, merchants, between llth No
vember. 1867, and June lS 1868.
Embedding $40, 740, as internal revenue tax on
1914 bales cotton shipped from Trenton by VIII
Hanson Darlington, between January IS, 1868,
and LIST april, 1868.
Embezzling $3.50, as internal revenue tax on
$50 bales of cotton shipped from Trenton by
Flournoy Millssps, between July 10, 1867, and
4th October, 1865.
A capias was Issued accordingly.
q. S. DISTRICT CoURT.-Messrs. Whitaker &
Whitaker, attorneys. on Tuesday, as per agree.
ment of counsel, submitted another of their wine
cases, containing same facts, etc., as were con-
tanned in their other case previously decided and
the court considering agreement. etc., rendered
rnTn ant nj nn6a r0n q
hessrs. Roselius Philips yesterday also sub.
mitted IS above two other vine cases as above
judgment the same.
One vine case was alec submitted by Miles
Taylor, Esq. yesterday, with the same judgment
as above.
The suit Of United States va. Louisiana State
Bank, Was discontinued on payment of costs,
as per instructions from attorney general.
This suit was relative to some cotton transaction,
ana involved $7l5,OO0.
SUPRBMs CouRT-Generdl Order.-Ordered,
that here after, whenever il shall be made to sp-
pear 10 the court that case has been improperly
caused by counsel to be placed upon the summary
docket The same sh.ll thereupon be transferred
TO the ordinary docket and entered at the foot
thereof.
FIRST DISTRICT CouHr.-Bdward Alexis was ar
raigned before the court yesterday, and pleaded
guilty TO charge Of assault and battery.
nolle pros. wss. entered in the case Of Jos.
Diamond and Alfred Moore, alias Wallace, charged
with attempting to rob another person.
Jimmy Tobin end Johnny Burke were tried and
found guilty Of larceny and sentenced. Tobin TO
one week and Burke TO one day in parish prison.
Lewis Sheridan pleaded guilty TO q charge Of
carrying concealed weapons.
William Mische was tried aud found guilty of
obtaining property under false presences.
David Matching, II. Reynolds and Pat Cain,
charged with assault and battery and John Ryan
and Chss. Mccormack, chsrged with robbery,
were released on nolle proseQus.
SIXTH DISTRICT CoURT.-Judge Cooley yester-
dsy delivered the following decision, which goes
straight to tie point in question. Young gentle.
men who are engaged in legal proceedings before
Judge Cooley should take care how they neglect
their cases:
To facilitate and expedite business, consented
that the parties to this suit should submit the
merits OF the out Of the regular order est,b-
lisbed by law for the trial of causes thus entaing
upon myself more labor than the law imposes.
But the understanding 80 entered on the minutes
was that the parties should file written briefs
within five days The defendants complied with
this condition. and from the plaintiff the following
is the only thing have received:
"NEw ORLEANS, April IL, 1869.
Z" Judge CoOleg-The case of Woods vs.. Watts
and wife submitted presents only questions Of
facts clearly establishing plaintiffs claim. and re-
Quires brief To assist the court ia its decision.
Respectfully, etc.. s*f+"
The testimony In the case was taken out of
court, and the case was submitted without word
In the shape Of en- oral argument, the understand.
ing being that briefs should be filed. There are
over one hundred pages of closely written test.
mony, snd elso considerable documentary.
The delays having expired for furnishing the
brief suggested TO the defendants counsel that
! could not examine the case, because / had no
brief from plaintiff, and also ordered the minute
clerk to inform counsel l was waiting for his
brief. The above note, which Is short il nothing
else, is the only response have received TO the
irtimstiOD that desired q brief from plaintiff
Whilst / am disposed 70 do everything / can 20
expedite business, land bel eve | have given
abundant evidence Of the fact,) / cannot take
upon myself to decide caees which depend upon
questions Of fact, when the testimony Is volumi-
nous and has been all taken out of my presence
and hearing without the benefit OF word Of
argument from the plaintiff, oral or otherwise.
The Judge is presumed to know the law; and
when cases depend upon question Of Law for
tLeir determination, suitors may reasonably ex
pect that no argument Is necessary. But judges
are not presumed TO know facts, and these must
be brought to their attention.
Submitting voluminous record like the pres-
ent, without argument, is a greater task than is
imposed By the Law, too great even for the best
disposed judicial officers 10 support. The plain
til in his short note says the case 10 clear. The
only clear point in the whole matter is, that one
Of the defendants, . the WIFE Ia not
responsible for one cent Of the building contract
The purchaser Of the lot on which tie house
was built. though made in her own name, was ef
fected during the existence Of the community.
without evidence TO show that the purchase was
an investment of her paraphernal or dotal funds,
the property so purchased belongs 70 the comma
nifty; and the husband alone is responsible for
charges on IL.
AS TO the liability of the husband. defendant,
II was the duty Of the plaintiff 10 prove this clear
ly. He has not done go
There must be a Judgment In favor of defend.
ant, as In case of Don-suit.