New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-14
THE COURTS.
Upsted States Circuit Court.

! capital STOCK Oh tlt IoNtCudI tl0il iSahiodu
Company. He AYERS that the Chattanooga
Railroad Corlpany are about to interfere
with the corporate rights of said Pontchar-
| train Railroad Company by laying rail-
| road t. ack upon territory especially belong
ing to said company, and he therefore asks
for an injunction restraining them from SO
doing.
The nature of this case is familiar to the
| public, inasmuch as several suits relative to
the same matter have been heretofore
noticed as having been filed in one of the
District Courts of this city. Miles Taylor, of
| counsel.
Uevotees of Fistlana In the Forum.
| Thurman ThlNston W. Thomas Allen
| This is a suit brought in the Sixth District
| Court for $3.50, the alleged value OF plain,
| t1f's services as ''tralnar' to Tom Alien
| during the period when he was being
| rubbed down and put in Exfor his late fight
with Jeln Mace The amount was attached
| in the hands Of a third party, whom it was
| alleged had funds in his hands belonging 70
| Ton Allen. 1t is understood hat the mat
! ter was to have been settled yesterday aud
| the suit withdrawn.
| I.cui.iana state Lottery Caae.
| A. 5. Leche VS.. Louisiana State Lottery
| In this case plaintiff WAS the holder OF
| ticket in the Louisiana State Lottery which
drew prize Of $500. The drawing Of the
| Lottery took place on the twenty eighth of
| October 1869. When the ticket was pre-
| sented payment was refused by the Lottery
| agent, whereupon the holder had 1t duly
| protested before Thomas Beck, notary pub.
! lie, at an expense Of three dollars, for nota'
rvs fees, and thirty cents for revenue
| stamps On the second of Decem Der 1869,
| the holder brought suit in the Fourth District
| Court for the amount called for by the ticket.
| Defendant lied al answer to the claim,
| denying Indebtedness. ald avering that the
| ticket sued on had been obtained by collu-
! sion with the ticket-vendor gentleman OF
| Castllian descent, who'follows the ancient
| and honorable occupation of keeping a cigar
| store. Defendant. in his answer, further
especially avcrred that the aforesaid vendor
| of the aromatic weed issued the ticket after
| the drawing had commenced, and after he
| knew the two first drawn plumbers, he hav-
| ing in view the wicked intention Of going
| "snacks" with the ticket-holder. Defendant
| failed TO make the court see it in this light,
| and, upon trial Of the case yesterday.
| Judge Theard rendered judgment against
| the lottery company and its stockholders an
| sOliGO for the full amount of the ticket
| ($l500l, with interest at five per cent, like
! wise for three dollars notaTies' fees, and
thirty cents for stsmps ard all costs.
| Lacey & Butler for plaintiff, and Jos. E.
| Harnor for defendant.
Child KILLED by "a Street Car.
| CndrlcS iaNeauX anu MS "llt L lZIUttH,
| yesterday filed suit il the Eighth District
| Court, against the Orleans Railroad Com
| pauy, fer causing the death Of their child.
| Petitioners allege that on The fifth OF the
| month, at about the hour of ten O'Clock in
| the morning, their child, Augustine J.
| LaveauX, aged about eighteen months, was
| crossing Dumain, at the Intersection OF
Marais street, in the Second District, and
| wien she reached the Railroad track, the
| car No. Il, b. longing to defendants, was
| passing down DumAiu. in the direction Of
the old Bayou Road, when the mule drawing
| the Car came IN contact with the child,
/ felled it 70 the ground, aud the wheels
passed over its breast and body, killing II
almost instantly.
| Petitioners aver that H. Selwick was the
| driver Of the car, and the street being open
| for Il great distance, the chid might easily
| have been seen by any person exercising or
binary prudence. They allege that the
driver was guilty of gross and paIpabie ne
glect, and that the company is responsible
for falling to place a conductor on each car,
as required by law and by their charter and
by laws.
They aver that the driver was not attend
ing to his duty at the time of she accident,
and that therefore the company is RESPONSE
BILE for the consequences. Plaintiffs ask
judgment for damages in the sum of SIS. coo.
Cotton Levy. attorneys for petitioners.
Eighth District Court.
Board of School Dire eCtors, vs., E. Bermu-
dez ct al.-This case came up yesterday
morning before this court, on the motion of
defendants to set aside the Injunction,
which seems to Interfere very materially
with the comfort of the parties who in the
petition are styled "trespassers and wrong
doers." Judge Voorhees,, esquired by +.
BermudeZ and Anthony Sambola, two of
the restive defendants, appeared for the
latter, aud George S. Lacey, Esq, and
Judge A: A. Atocha for the, school
PENDANTS and their counsel, they seemed
to be very much at loss to know
what they were about. A strong impression
prevailed in the court room that bun
combt" was defendants strongest point and
sole aim. Upon the statement end argument
of Mr.. Voorhees,, the counsel for the school
board offered to submit the rule TO quasb
Voorhees, accepted, and the rule was sub
mtted, but 1t would not do the brimful
eioquenCe of Bermudez and Sambola to be
squelched so easi!y-it wOuid not pay; so
they bo;h said their piece and tatlsfed
every body that the plaintiffs were right ia
al their positions. The morning hour
being exhausted, Judge Dibble suggested
a continuance for an opportunity
of a further ventilation or the idosyncra-
cles, and sophomore efforts Of the Defend
ants IN prOpriG pers0nd;n Moasrs. Lacey &
Atocha, VINO good humoredly relied On the
merits Of their cause and said little, yielded
to the suggestion of the court, aud the mo-
ton will be argued again on Monday next,
at which time, it is hoped, the defense may,
for the sake OF the valuable time of the
court, have something plausible to submit.
Seventh Dist,ict Court.
Kehlor, Updlke & Co. VS.. James T. Bek-
nap.-In this case Judge Collens has render
ed the following decision:
The plaintiffs, through their own selling
broker, sold a lot OF -four to defendant, a
produce broker in the usual course of such
business; but the parties for whom the de-
tendant WAS acting proved insolvent and
failed to pay. 1t is claimed that he is lab q |
for the price of the -four. This he denies
and hence this suit.
The evidence shows the course of the pro-
duce business to be this: There are two sets |
of so-called brok kers-selling brokers and |
buying brokers. At the outset, in most |
,rapsacticns, the selling broker makes
known the name of his principal. Rarely, |
or ever, does he withhold or conceal it; in |
deed, it is difficult for him TO do so, for his |
employers are generally the same con'inu- |
ousiy, and the possession of bulky articles is |
not easily dsst mbled; but the purchasing |
broker may easily withhold the name OF his |
prih cluai, and this he generally does till !
after the delivery of the goods purchased. |
Frequently he r.frains from Ii, closing it all, |
aud in this case he gets the price Of the |
goods beforehand from the purchaser he |
represents, and makes the payment himself. |
In the present instance the account ct the |
proper time, was endorsed as due by |
Gautherin 4 Co.. but when plaintiffs col |
leotOr asked them tor the money, though |