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

STATES
ex rel. G. A. Weed. This case was called up !;
Alex. Walker for relator, Semmes d Mott for W.
N. SmsllWood; when, after hearing the plead
iDgs. evidence and Argument, the court took time
Myrs Q. games, CaIeb cushing subrogated, vs.
ID. N. Hennen. Deposition to masters report
cslled and continued till 18th inst.
United States vs. Bouligny and al. J. B. Wei
Ter. Esq, has taken rule on the district attorney,
returnsble 10th inst, to show cause Why the judg
ment in this case should not be opened up and
leave given to defendants to answer.
Aristide Mary and ]. H. Oglesby were appointed
names.
The Grand Jury yesterday found true bill
against Eugene Tisdale late collector of the third
district OF Louisiana, for embezzlement. as fol-
lows, viz:
EmbezziiDg s22. eco, received by him as collector
OF internal revenue, third collection district as
internal revenue tax on 2200 bales cotton shipped
from Trenton by Oliver & Mcclure, merchants,
between June 8, 1867, and 18th June, 1868.
Embezzling sl5, 200, as internal revenue tax on
1870 bales cotton shipped from Trenton by D. T.
Heard Co., merchants, between January 8, 1868,
and 18th April, 1868.
Embezzling si4,l2O, as internal revenue tax on
l4l2 bales cotton shipped from Trenton by Stan.
dner, Bush Co., merchants, between llth No.
vember, 1867, sac June Is, 1865.
Embezzling ,140, as internal revenue tax on
lO74 bales cotton shipped from Trenton by vii.
Hanson Darlington, between January Is, 1865.
and LIST april, 1865.
Embezzling $3.50, ss internal revenue tax on
$50 bales of cotton shipped from Trenton By
fiouInoy Milissps, between July 10, 1867, and
4th October, 1865.
capias was issued accordingly.
U. S. DISTRICT CoURr.-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
judgment Of condemnation.
Messrs. Roselius Philips yesterday also sub.
United ss above two other wine cases as above
judgment the same.
One wine case was also submitted by Miles
Tsyio Esq, yesterday, with the same judgment
as above.
The suit of United States We. Louisiana State
Bank, was discontinued on payment Of costs
as per instructions from attorney general.
This suit was relative to some cotton transaction
and involved $751;
SUPREME CoURT-General Order.-Ordered.
that hereafter, 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 shall fhereupon be transferred
to the ordinary docket and entered at the foot
thereof
raigned before the court yesterday and pleaded
guilty TO charge of assault and battery.
~. A noile pros: was entered in the case Of Jos.
Diamond snd Alfred Moore, alias Wallace. charged
with attempting to rob another person.
Jimmy Tobin and Johnny Burke were tried ana
found guilty Of larceny and sentenced, Tobin to
one week and Burke to one day in parish prison. |
Lewis Sheridan pleaded gully to charge of |
carrying concealed weapons.
William hische was tsied aud found guilty OF |
obtaining property under false pretences
David Matching, 81. Reynolds and Pat Cain,
charged with assault and battery and john RYAN
and Chss. Mccormack, charged with robbery.
were released on nolle prosequis.
Sixth DISTRICT CoURr.-Judge Cooley vAater.
day delivered the following decision, which Qoes
straight to the point in question. Young gentle
men who are engaged In legal proceedings before
,uoge Cooley should take care how they neglect
heir cases:
To facilitate and expedite business. consented
hat the parties TO this suit should suomit the |
merits OF the case out OF the regular order esteb-
lshed by law for the trial of causes, thus entaing
lpon myself more labor thar the Law imposes |
But the understanding 80 entered on the minutes |
Pss that the parties should file written briefs |
slthin i've days. fbe defendants compiled with
bis condition, and from the plaintiff the following
) the only thing have received:
"NEw ORLEANS. April IL, 1869.
" Judge Co0tey-Tbe case of Woods vs. Watts |
md wife submitted presents only questions OF |
acts clearly establishing plaintiffs claim and re.
nires no brief to assist the court 10 it's decision
Respectfully, etc.. sss*p
The testimony in the case was taken ont of |
ourt ard the case was submitted without word |
D the shape Of an oral argument the understand. |
~ beng that b.iefs should be filed. There are |
yer one hundred peges OF closely written test.
lony, and also considerable documentary
The delays having expired for furnishing the |
REF, suggested to the defendants counsel that !
could not examine the case, because had no |
REF from plaintiff, and also ordered the minute
Jerk to inform counsel / was waiting for his |
REF. The above note, which Is short If nothing
se, lie the only response have received to the |
timation that / desired Q brief from plaintiff |
fhilet am disposed TO do everything / can TO |
Z pedIte business, land ! bel eve have given
pom myself to decide GASES which depend unon |
1ettions OF fact, when the Testimony Is yolumi | .
Gus and has been all taken out of nv presence
nd hearing without the benefit Of q word of
,gument rom the plaintiff. oral or otherwise.
be judge is presumed TO know the law: and
men cases depend upon Q question of law for |
er determination, suitoTs may reasonably ex. |
ect that no argument is necessary. But judges |
e noI presumed 10 know facts, and these must ]
; brought TO their attention.
submitting voluminous record like the pres- |
II, without argument, is greater task than ia | .
lposed By the Law, too great even for the best |
sposed judicial officers 70 support. The plain.
in his short note says the case ia clear. The
Iy clear point In the whole matter is that one
The oefendaDts, the wife Ia NOT |
sponsible for one cent of the building contract. -.
le purchaser OF the lot on which Ike house VI
y built though made In her own name, was ef-
'ieo during the existence of the community |
thout evidence to show that the purchase was
investment OF her paraphernal or dotal funds
property so purchased belongs 70 the comma
y; and the husband alone is responsible for
argos on il.
As TO the liability of the husband, defendant
yes me DUTY OF The plaintiff to prove this clear.
he has not done go.
here must be a judgment in favor of defend.
; as In case Of non suit.