The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-19

the said Confederate treasury notes being notes
issued by so-caled Confederate States, having the
qualily ano currency OF bank notes or U. s.
Confederate states, and then being of the par
value OF U. 5. treasury notes; that the said
amount of Confederate treasury notes appeared
upon ine Dooss OF tne bank as cash, and were re-
ceived as such on deposit to the credit of pet.
TONERS. That the defendant did use the said Con.
federate notes as its own and as part of the gen.
eral fund of the bank. paying its debts therewith
and otherwise using and employing the same in
ordinary banking operations during a period of
several months. and up to the date of the cspture
of New Orleans that as soon after the capture as
the petitioner was able to do SO he demanded pay.
ment OF the balance as aforesaid that defendant
refused to pay the same iD anything but the then
worthless and deprecated currency of the so.
called Confederate States, which ceased to be of
any value unto the petitioner, petitioner was at
mat time within the line OF permanent occupation
OF the United States forces that the defendants
had prior 10 the 22d of May, 1862 sent out to the
Interior of the Confederate States q large amount
OF the said Confederate treasury notes ani pur.
chased Herewith cotton, out IF which il realized
large gains; that when petitioner by its agent,
demanded payment of the balance due by defen.
oant the said agent declined aud refused to re.
ceive payment of the same in the said currency of
the Confederate States, but. that by the order of
| General Butler. ard under du-ess and illegal con-
straint, the said agent was compelled to receive
peyment in the then worthless Confederate States
| Does, and the said agent protested against said
payment.
Wherefore petitioner prays for judgment and
general relief. Thos. Hunton for petitioner
AZ eleven O'Clock last night the jury in the case
OF Witbers VS.. Mrs. Gsussen, a case involving a
million of dollars reported that they were unable
! TO agree upon a verdict, and were discharged
This was suit brought upon promissory notes,
the consideration of which was partly land and
! partly negroes.
JUDGE P. Fl. MORGAN entered formally upon
his duties as United States district attorney YES
tercay. At the opening of the court 5. NJ. Torrey
Esq. ex district attorney, rose, introduced Judge
Morgan, moved that his commission be spread
upon the minutes of the court, and concluded by
saying:
"In taking leave of the court. and in severiag
my Official connection with IT, | take this occasion
OF expressing my sincere gratitude to the court
and all lis othcers for the extreme courtesy and
Kindness extended to me during my term of office"
Judge Durell briefly and pleasantly expressed
his satisfaction with the manner in which the ex-
attorneys duties had been discharged, and then
the regular business of the court was resumed.
THE CASE OF THE STATE vs. L. SIIvERsrEIN.
Q arged with arson, was resumed before Recorder
becker at O'Clock last evening, and after the ex.
animation of several witnesses was again con.
tint ed to O'Clock P. NJ. to day.
THIRD DISTRICT CoURT.-B. Extenstein vs. City
OF New Orleans, No. l60-Appleal from the Third
Justice Court. Plaintiff was arrested for receig-
ing stolen goods and the articles claimed taken
from him by Officer Read at the First District
Station, then acting clerk. Plaintiff was tried and
",
avail, sues the city as Liable for the acts of its
agent, before the third justice peace, for slO0
damages received judgment and the city appealed
TO Third District Court. Samuel Myers for plain.
tn Leovy and MunrOe fOi city of New Orleans. |
Reasons for Judgment by Judge Emerson In |
November, 1867, the plaintiff was arrested by the
CITY police and taken to the station house. on the
charge OF receiving stolen goods knowing them |
10 have been stolen. On his arrival no officer was |
present authorized to take bail and he was placed
in close custody, but a preliminary TO that he |
wassearched in compliance with the rules of the |
station, and the property found on him was taken
possession OF by police officer specially detailed
10 that duty. 1t consisted of pocket knife, a |
lottery ticket and a portemonnaie containing /
ninety collars iD city notes. few hours after. /
wards the plaintiff was released and subsequently |
discharged but his property was never restored, |
although he made early and repeated demands |
for II. He then sued the city for 500 and lob. |
tanned Judgment for that amount before the third |
Justice Of the peace; the defendant appealed.
Ire defense set up is this That the defendant is
not liable for the act of its officers.
For many acts OF mslfeasance, misfeassnce and |
Don-feasance on the part of its agent, a political
corporation is exempted from liability. This ex.
empton is, in general restricted TO those cases in /
which the damage complained of results from the
exercise of power vested in the corporation and
The power itself s legally and properly exercised
or IN which its Don-eXercise is a matter of discre-
ton. Beuret VS.. city of New 0rleans IA an-
nUai l20.
The case at bar does not fall within the above
rule The plaintiff Is property was received by
duly authorized agent of the city, and then be. |
cane deposit. of which the corporation was the
depokitary, and lis return was not discretionary
with the defendant.
The testimony, however does not an horize a
judgment for the amount rendered by the Justice
lDesmuch as city notes in November, 1867, were
below par.
Let the Judgment be reversed aud let there be
judgment in favor Of the plaintiff and against de-
fendant in the sum of eighty-fve dollars with Eve
tha of |
appeal to be paid by plaintiff and those of the |
lower court by defendant.
SIXTH DISTRICT CoURT-.Jttdge C0oley.-E1och
J. Barkdull, for the use of his minor child (now
about eight years DID, VS.. the New Orleans and |
Carrolltun Railroad Company. NAPLES & Kellogg,
w. II. Hunt and Gibson & Austin for plaintiff, and
]. 8. Simonds. ESQ., for the defendants.
This is suit now on trial before his court for
$50 600 damages, based on allegations that on the
18th day of June, 1866, about Gs O'Clock P. M the
company, duly Incorporated, with criminal care.
essuess and gross negligence drove one of their
horse cars over the child, crushed his right leg,
rom tie knee to the ankle joint, and crushed his
eft foot and ankle, rendering it necessary that
both legs should be smputated, all of which it Is
alleged was wholly the fault of said company and
vas done while the car 10 question was driven by
grossly negligent driver, who was in the employ
4 the company, at or near the corner of ST.
jhs1les and ST. Mary streets, in this city. The
,hud, bright little boy, was in court yesterday
lurino the trial, which was not concluded.
Fgument Of counsel continued till to-day.
In the case of Cbesnut VS.. Hughes the jury re.
urn verdict for the plaintiff for $4,000 aud we're {
scharged. The suit was for damages for injuries J
one child by carelessness.
molten has also been made. in the case of c
Iubner VS.. the, Carrollton Railroad, for a new
ia. U
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.-Judge beaumont has .
sued an alas UeHt1e tdctds, or summons, for 250 :
dditonsl jurors. Wei done, Judge. There are =
D many negroes on the sherlil's list who have
either local habitation nor responsibility, bat : :
bo come and who go at the nod and beck, of /. .
arpet baggery, that there is no way to get hold <
them. They Ike the Frenchmanfs flea u !
ard TO get hold Of, and when in hand of no =
arthly account.
Q. Matthews has taken rule on Louisiana Fire | :
ompsny No 10 to produce their minute book in y
ouTt next Wednesday, at 10 O'clock in order to ~
ow as he alleges, the illegality and uDcOnstitu- =
oDaliiy Of their proceedings in ousing him as a !,
ember Of their body. "
ba nf al l