New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-12-23
THE COURTS.
United States bCircuit Court. Judge Durs;l
Pfos1dlng.

VHk COCRTSe
United etates lCircuit Court. Judge Dars;
Presiding.
We are under obligations to Mr.. II. Lang
ford, reporter of the United States courts
for the following report of Judge Durell's
'G Homer & Gsff vs.. G. L!Dolsen & Son.
This suit is brought upon an accepted
draft and an open account. The defendant
pleads prescription. There is no question
as to the account being prescribed, and
is therefore given for the defendant.
And with regard to the draft, the plea is
Overruled; for, after deductiDg the time
which has elapsed between the twenty-sixth
of January, 1861, when the President OF the
United States Convention declared thus
''In virtue of the vote just announced, de-
clare the connection between the State of
Louisiana and the Federal Union dissolved,
and that she is q free, sovereign and indie
pendent power" And on the twentieth
August, 1866, when the President of the
United States, by proclamation, declared
that, "InsurrectiOn is at an end, and that
peace and tranquility and civil authority
exist in and throughout the whole United
| States Of America" less than five years re-
main between the date of the falling due of
the obligation and the date Of the
The only question which now remains to
be determined is, from what date interest
ON the draft shall commence to run. Mr..
Chief Justice Chase, in the case Of Biger
vs. Waller, United States Circuit Court,
Virginia. says:
"In case decided by the Circuit Court OF
the United States for the District of North
Carolina, it was held that interest did cease
during the recent civil war, in consequence
1e ox>r<l <l..~ % L.
tract in the hostile sections of the country.
Since that decision was made it has been
held by the Supreme Court of the United
States, il. the case Of Hanger vs. Abbott (6
WALL 532i, that the statute Of limitation
was suspended in the insurgent States as to
nOn-resdents having causes of action against
residents by the civil war. And in the case
of Ward VS.. Smith & Wall, 452l, while
it was held that under the circumstances
| of that particular case interest did not
| cease, the opinion of the court was upon
circumstances creating an exception to the
general rule that interest does not accrue
during war between citizens or subjects OF
| belligerent States. The general rule was
| neither affirmed nor denied, but it may not
unreasonably be inferred from the language
| Of the court that if the direct question pre-
| sented by this case were before that
| tribunal, it would be resolved in favor of
the maker Of the bond. Bigler, the maker,
| was in occupation Of the estate purchased
at the commencement of the war by his
agent; and not only was he wholly excluded
from occupancy, and from possession
during its continuance. but the improve
ments put on the property by him at great
cost, were destroyed. and the estate other
wise greatly injured. Waller, the obligee.
was in the Confederate army, and at the
| sale made under the trust. and executed by
Bigler to secure the bond became himself
the purchaser: and he was, doubtless,
to the land as against Bigler entitled. as
| such purchaser, to the possession.
"We have already said that Waller is not
to be held responsible for the injuries sus-
tanned by Bigler in consequence OF the war:
but OH the other hand, we can not doubt
that if interest on a debt should cease in
| any case it should cease in this; and our du.
ty is to determine this question as we be-
lievc it would be determined by the Supreme
Court, if submitted to its consideration.
"It is more difficult to determine TIE period
during which interest should cease. The
actual beginning of the war against the
United States, doubtless. preceded the proc
lamation of the President of the fifteenth
of April 1861, calling out the militia to sup
press insurrection: but the proclamation de-
clarin. the blockade of the ports of the in
surgent States must be regarded as the first
formal recognition of civil war by the ma
tional government. That proclamation was
issued on the twelfth of April, and that date
therefore, must he taken as the date of the
commencement Of the war. The period of
its termination has not been so definitely
ascertained. 1t was declared, by
the concurrent action of the President
and of Congress, to have ended on the
second Of August, 1866 and this date has
been recognized by the Supreme Court rs
the end Of the rebellion. intended by the
abandoned and captured property act, and
some other legislative provisions.
SIN another case depending on the effect
of the statute of limitations, the court
thought fit to decline fixing any precise
date of termination, applicable to all cases.
This question being thus left open, We think
it right in this case to take the establish
ment at Richmond of the adhering govern
ment of Virginia as the recognized govern
ment of the whole States, as the end of the
war in this State. This event may be said
to have taken place when the executive
department of that government was re-
moved from Alexandria to Richmond, on
the twenty-sixth of May, 1865. The period.
then, to be excluded in the computation of
interest, is the time from the nineteenth OF
April, 1861, to the twenty-sixth of May.
1865
But here. rs in the case Of Ward VS..
Smith, 7 Wallace. 4j2, exist circumstances
which create an exception to the genera |
rule, "That interest does not accrue durU e
war between citizens or subjects Of bellig-
erent States" The city of New Orleans
was subjected to the power Of the United
States on the twenty-seventh April. 1862.
The then commanding general of the De
partment of the Gulf issued his proclama-
ton to that effect The defendant was. at
that time, resident of New Orleans, and
he remained up TO the middle of the year
1863 1t is one of the political facts of the
time. and within the cogniZance of the
court that as early as July, 1862, communi-
cations between New Orleans and all the
loyal portions of the United States were ir
weekly occurrence, by mail or otherwise,
and that said communication was allowed
and protected by the authorities of the
United States.
The defendant. Dolsen, left New Orleans
in July, 1863, for Mexico and England, and
after an absence beyond the seas Of three
years, returned here in 1866. Under these
circumstances, interest shall commence to
run from the first of July, 1867, and iudg-
ment is given accordingly.
Eighth District Court.
In this court Judge Dibble announced
that there would be no court next week
Cases were fixed for Tuesday, the third of
January, 1871.
Damages for Putting Out au Eye-CIaim for
$4,000.
William RECORD vs.. Richard Behan-This
case came up for trial. Plaintiff AYERS that
his little son had an eye put out by a pair
of scissors in the hands of young son of
the defendant.
Plaintiff claims $4,000 damages. He
AYERS that by the wrongful act Of the de-
fendant's minor child, he, the plaintiff, has