New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-10
THE COURTS.
The Forged Coupor. Case.


State Of Louisiana vs.. r.. Il. Bochler.-As
heretofore reported. +. K. Boehler. +. Falk
and L. A. Isaac were arrested about the
first Vi. this month on an affidavit made by
James Graham. State auditor, charging
them with counterteitin2 and issuing cou-
pnn> of State bonds Tor an amount exceed
inr $4,000 II was alleged that on III"
twentieth Of july. 1870 these parties pre-
scented 10 the State Auditor counterfeit cOu-
pons 20 the amount OF s. 80. and on the
twentieth OF august following they pre-
serted another lot VI torgeti coupons.
amounting to Ga. 100, for which they also
obtained warrants amounting in the aggre-
gate 10 sal $50. The warrants obtained on
these so-calied forged coupons, being genll-
inc warrants. were put upon the market and
circulated as other paper of that character.
The allegation that the coupons on which
the warrants were issued had been forged.
having come 10 the knowledge OF the eX
ecutive. suit was instituted IN the Eighth
District Court by Major John III. New, Act
ing Attorney General, TO protect the rights
OF :he State in the premises.
In that suit, filed on the first of Septem
Der, 1t was alleged that Falk and Isaac
were coniederatcs with Z. X. Boehler. for
lnerlv a clerk in the Auditors Office under
| g. u. Wicklitte, and with him embezzled
from the State o. Louisiana Il Snm OF money
OF an indefinite amount. 1t having been
ascertained by the State officials that Boeh-
Ter. Falk and Isaac kept money on deposit
in the Canal Bank and Bank of New Or
leans. these banks were made garnisheeS 10
the extent of the deposits made by the de-
PENDANTS. II was aScertaincd that the
Canal Bank had on deposit abou. $500 be
longing to Falk and fifty dOllars'belonginG
10 isaac, subject to attachment by the
State The Bank Of New Orleans filed an
answer to the garnshment as follows:
For answer to plaintiffs interrogatorics,
the Bank OF New Orleans cited as gar
nishee. answers:
TO inteIrogatories one, two and three.
no. except the sum OF tifty-seven dollars.
which the Bank owes IN account to +. X.
Boehler. and the sum al fifty dollars which
the bank owes to Solomon Isaac. The
bank owes nothing 10 the other defendants
III executing the writs of arrest against
the defendants, the police found about
( 1900 in the cigar store OF Solomon Isaac.
which sum Is under representation
Thus stands the matter IL the Eighth DIS
tlict Court. while the parties defendant are
about undergoing examination before he
cCrdcr Stacs. OF the criminal charge OF
forging the coupons.
Fourth District Court.
Everett Lane 4 C- vs. j. W. Iodd,-fitis
il, It suit fer tie recovery Of SOLO 4U. ~ set
forth III the legations contained III The
petition, fled through plaintiffs attorneys.
Lacey u Butler:
1t is stated tina! J. VI. Todd. q resident Of
jefferson. Texas, Is JrlIiF and justly IN
tlcbtcd 10 petitioners in the sum u SGt6 20,
with five per cent interest from the seven
tccnth III January. 1875, for II biz OF boots
and shoes purchased from them. Petition
els pray ior Il Writ OF attachment. which
was granted by Judge Ihcard. on pet
TONERS furnishing bond i'll the sum OF
$3.50.
Keep & Hogan vs.. Alphonse Maurcau.-
This is q sult for the recovery OF S2li %,
for which amount plaintiffs hold a prom
issoI'y note. dated May IL. 1870, payable
NINETY days after date. Petitioners aver
that they could not get payment upon ami
cable demand.
Peter Iabonisse vs.. 4. Delaoraye.-Peti
tioner Sues FOR rhe recovery of $3.50 for
which. amount be holds lromissory note.
dated january s, 1870, and payable ninety
days after. date. the payment al which upon
anicable demand was refused.
James +. LASTS vs.. isaac L. Hinton.-In
this case it is averred that Isaac T. Hinton
is justly aud truly indebted to petitioner III
| the sum of 1915. with five per cent interest.
Petitioner leased to defendant for the year
1869. ending on the first OF October, the
lower tloolvof the building No. "a CONNER
cial Place, al $500 per annun. 1t is stated
that defendant has paid the rent up to the
thirty-tirst OF May last, and continues to
occupy the property, but has failed to pay
the balance due. Petitioner alleges that he
Las good cause 70 fear and believe that the