New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-10-25
THE COURTS.
Eixhth District Court.

Board OF metropolitan IOllce-lu tnlS Case
and about ono hundred and twenty-five
others of tho same class, a petition has been
filed substantially as follows
Joseph Madden, a resident of the city Of
New Orleans, in the State of louisiana
with respect represents that he was ap-
pointed and commissioned as patrolman OF
police, in the Metropolitan Police, District
of New Orleans, State OF Louisiana, com
prising the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson
and ST. Bernard, under the laws enacted to
establish said district and put the same in
operation; and that, under said appoint
ment, he qualified as required by law; that
as patrolman as aforesaid, he served from
the first day of October, 1868, the date of
his appointment, until the thirty-tirst Of
September, 1869, during which time he main
tanned good reputation and served faith
fully and honOrably.
Relator now represents that by the pro-
visions of act No. ~ Of the General Assem-
bly, of 1870, entitled "An act for the relief
of the officers and members of the Metro
politan Police" there is due him the sum of
$3.50, being thirty per cent on the dollar on
500 salary as patrOlman as aforesaid from
the first day of October, 1868, until the close
of the fiscal year 1862 and for the payment
of which provision has been made by law.
RelatOr further represents that the law in
question requires that the Board OF Metro
warrants) to each officer and member OF
said police entitled thereto.
RelatOr further says that he has demanded
payment from said board, as provided by
law, through its proper officers. the presi-
dent and chief clerk thereof, of the sum
due him as aforesaid; but relator says that
they, the Metropolitan Police Board, by
| their officers as aforesaid, Oscar j. Dunn,
president, and c. d. Ludecke, chief clerk.
70 alatn aI M
| by giving warrant as required by law.
Wherefore, relator prays that writ OF
mandamus issue, as directed by law, di-
| rected to Oscar j. Dunn, president, and G.
| d. Ludecke, chief clerk of the Metropolitan
Police Board. commanding them to show
cause, on a day fixed, why they should not
| issue a warrant in favor of relatOr for the
sum of 1850, as percentage on salary as
| aforesaid; and, after legal proceedings had,
| relator prays that the same he made per
| emptory, and the said defendants ordered
| to issue Il warrant, and for general relief III
| the premises.
A large number of lawyers assembled in
| this court yesterday morning, i'll the expec-
| tation that Judge Dibble would render
| some important decisions. but owing to the
! detention of the steamer K. +. Lee. on
which the Judge had gone on an excursion
| to Natchez, he did not arrive. The court,
| therefore, stood adjourned.
| Collins & Tabor VS.. the City of New Or
| leans-This case was to have been argued
| yesterday. 1t involves a claim of $1,000 for
| printing against the old City Council of JEFF
! terson. A mandamus is asked for, directed
| to Alfred Shaw. Administrator of Accounts,
| to compel him to audit the account. Il.
| King Cutler was to have made n speech III
the case. but was disappointed by the alb
! sence of Judge Dibble.
The Great jefferson City improvements
Case.
| In the case of Romine VS.. j. r. West the
| final argument by Judge r. King Cutler was
| to have been delivered yesterday, but owing
was again postponed. by agreement of coun-
| sell until Thursday, the twentyseventh OF
October.
second District Court.
Judge Duvigneaud rendered a couple OF
| decisions yesterday. His courtroom was
| crowded with foreigners from all portions
| of the continent of Europe, each and every
one seemingly bent upon having something
| to say at the approaching election.
In the case of William +. Fitzgerald VS..
| Mrs Powers ct al. Judge Duvigneaud rem
| dered decision upon rule taken 10y plain
| tiff. i'll which it was ordered that the rule be
| made absolute; that the act of partition be
! duly approved. and that Mrs. Powers, as
| natural tutrix of plaintiff, be condemned to
pay n1lu Inc sum VI vO-f 40. HIS case Has
been before this court for a very long time.
In the case of the succession of Mrs. NJ. A.
Meade, it was ordered that the opposition
of Mrs. Wilbert be dismissed. and that the
account be amended so as to include claim
| of S255, and then distributed
Succession of Charles Beebe.
Judge Duvigneaud has rendered the fol
| lowing rather interesting decision:
This is an action brought by Luc Beebe.
| the natural child duly acknowledged OF
Mariette Dubreuil, against the estate OF
| Charles Beebe. claiming ope-half of all the
property left by the said Charles Beebe at
| the time of his demise. The action is predi.
Gated on the ground that Charles Beebe, in
| 1926, was in a very prosperous position;
was conducting small jobbing shop for the
! repairs of harness, and that at that time
| plaintiffs mother had means which she in
| herited from her father Jean Dubreuil, and
| that they then entered into contract OF
| partnership for the conduct of a dairy
source from which Charles Beebe derived
| the whole of his property. The plaintiff
| contends that he is the only heir of the said
| Mariette Dubreuil, and therefore entitled
| to her share in the assets belonging to the
| partnership heretofore existing between
| his deceased mother and the late Charles
! Beebe he therefore claims the undivided hall
! of all the property inventorled III the success
| sion of the said late Charles Becbe, No
| 2O326 of the docket of this court. To this the
| legal representative of the succession OF
| Charles Beebe, to wit: William Beebe
| testamentary executor and tutor of the
| universal legatee Of the said Charles Beebe
answers by a general denial and special
| denial as to the contract OF partnership.
| He also files plea of prescription OF five,
| ten, fifteen and twenty years.
BY careful examination OF the evidence
adduced on the trial of this case, l have
! come to the following conclusions: The
| plaintiff has established that he is the only
| surviving heir Of Mariette Dubreuil; that
his said mother cohabited with the said
| Charles Beebe, and that he was the issue OF
| their union; that in 1925, or about that time,
| Charles Beebe was poor man and Mari
cite Dubreuil a woman of means: that they
actually worked together in partnership
| and that the means or property OF the said
| Charles Beebe was acquired from the money
earned by them in their trade or partner
ship concern. -Four witnesses have been
| heard to that effect, and establish those
| facts beyond cavil or doubt. The defend
ant seems to rely on a solitary pOint-that
is that the action is barred by prescription
| The cross-examnation of the witnesses in
| troduced by plaintiff shows most clearly
that defendant relies entirely upon his plea
| of prescription. Therefore, the only serious
means of defense offered is the prescription
plea which | Will now consider. The only
| question to I've solved is whether this action
is barred by the prescription of twenty
years. l think not. This claim is for the
settlement of partnership assets held by
one Of the partners, and is governed by the
same rules which govern partition OF
| estates among heirS-yide Civil Code