New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-19
THE COURTS.

Request d Go rs. Andre1o Doyse.-Inis IS
a suit instituted in 1861, and Oh the thirtleth
OF April, 1864, pending the war, Jndgmeh.
was rendered for $l27 against the oeie4oans
by w. W. Handin, who was appointed Juuge
Of the Fourth District Court by military
authority.
On the sixth Of January, 1870, plalnt1
brought suit before Judge Theard, in which
it is alleged that an execution had been
issued on this judgment. and return MADE
thereon of 'DO property found" There
fore petitioner asks that defendant be cited
and condemned to pay the said sum OF SIT.
Defendant in his answer says he IS not
liable to any demand on the part OF the
plaintiff, because no legal Judgment has
been rendered. that ". W. Handiln' VINO
assumed to be Judge of this court, and oy
whom the Judgment was signed, was hot
legally elected or appointed IN ACCORDANCE
with the laws and constitution OF the STATE;
that he was appointed by General George
F. Shepley, of the United States army. ana
had no authority under said appointment,
| because the constitution of the State pro-
yided that the District Judges should be
elected by the people. The case was argued
Yesterday, and counsel for defense expressed
the determination to take the matter before
| the Supreme Court OF the U U-lted States II
necessary, 3 Egan of counsel for plain
| tiff, and Bricken and Z. II. Maur for the
| defense.
| Sixth District Court
! Watson king and Edtrdrd C2arksOn rs
| c. l.. .SGuCRet.-Defendant, as special dls
| bursting agent of the Bureau Of Refugees
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, paid ovel
the amounts of bounty and back pay which
| were due to plaintiffs to other persons not
authorized. Judge Cooley yesterday rem
dered the mandamus peremptory, directing
The defendant to pay over the sums due tt
seventh District Court.
William j. Porter Us. Pike, Brother d
| Co This is a suit for $50, sol, being the
amount of various bills of exchange drawn
by J. G. Forbes, of this city, on plaintiffs il
New York against several bills of ladiDg fol
SAB bales ci merchantable cotton, purport
ing to have been shipped on the brig G. G
Colson, bound for Liverpool. These bill:
of ladng were sent by defendant to theil
agent at New York, and, on the representa-
tiOn Of the agent, the plaintiff accepted ant
paid the bills of exchange. Petitioue
AYERS that the cotton shipped on said brig q
c. Colson was of The value of SIS, 600 ant
no more; that each of said bales was mix
ture of paper stock, notes and refuse cotton
Petitioner alleges that by presenting ant
offeriug the bills of lading of said cotton
defendants warranted the verify thereof
and guaranteed to petitioner that so mucl
cotton was actually shipped. Claiman
therefor contends that the defendants ar
liable for the amount advanced on the faitl
that so mucl merchantable cotton was &C
,ually shipped. Lea, Finney & Miller, Q
counsel.
BOdrdier and BeLeSsier 0s. Charles AOrgd
| ct dl-In this case petitioners allege tha
Charles Morgan and the Attakapas Mai
Transportation Company are common car
riers. engaged in the business Of transport
ing freight for hire from the city of New Or
leans to the parish of st. Mary, in this State
and as such received from the firm of Her
| man, Levy d Co., of this city. to b
conveyed and delivered to plaintiff at Pat
tersonvile, in Louisiana, certain box G
merchan disc, valued at 1865 26.
This box of merchandise was delivered T.
the defendants about the twentieth of Sep
tember, 1859, and they (defendants) under
took and agreed to deliver as aforesaid, bu
| have failed to do SO.
Defendant, Charles Morgan, for answer
admits that he received for conveyance o.
his road, known as Morgan's Louisiana an
Texas Railroad, a box or case of merchar
disc, shipped about the twentieth of SeI
tember, 1869, TO plaintiff, but defendant say
that the same WAS received to be taken b
him to the terminus CT his road at Brashea
CITY. and was there delivered by him to tn
Attakapas Mail Transportation Company,
be conveyed to PattersOnville, Louisiana
that this defendant is not responsible fC
the acts or omissions of said Attakapas Ma
Transportation Company, and that havlD
. delivered the box to them, as was usual an
customary in such cases, he is in DO way r.
sponsible to plaintiff for damages or loi
3 subsequent to such delivery. johnson an
t Denis attorneys for plaintiff. and H.
, Leovy and F. A. Monroe for defendants.