New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-11-26
THE cot RT~.

IL tile Supreme Court Yesterday. tie 81
! low ing cases were submitted for decision
J {. Bach vs.. W. A Hathorn. Henry Won
| Phu!, Jr.. and William Won Pan, y the
city of New Orleans: Frederic K Hono,I -
the city of New Orleans e III, James X
Young vs. the Magazine Street Railroad
! Company. and the Magazine Street RAJ.
! read Company vs., James II lou4-.
| The appeal in the ease of the ely y
| Adam Bui>>on and others has been W.
! drawn.
/ The Crescent Ci,y Waterwo.I.s how
/ cones into the Sixth D.>-rict Court and
>Lr- to compel the city o. NV Orleans u
transfer 10 the Crescent t.-y company all
the property row known a. ''vaterwclk>'
Tie rights of the SUING company aye based
upon the act OF the Legislature. tb0;:- the
PRONUNCIATION OF which there was a recent
iuplea>antne>>. and whitl. lives - item
exclusive privileges
III the Eighth Di>tric. Court. the coatin-
gent expense warrant Mtu':;t,l!J-e- az al
Present the unpronounced -UH'rc- nf attru-
ton. 1t will be rccollcctr,i That W l.. VI,
M;ilcn. A. X. Whitney and Thomas c. An
ter>on We're included among the holders II
t,.c-e warrants. who we've Tie largest inter
c>-ed in their several luandaMt-e- o.l Treas
Urer DuhuClct. anu all pursued the -ul.t
route III this court. and took similar stops
Insofar these suits st ~ for the rrla.-
or- Il preference to ~. PAIL their warrants
ove. others. the claims ale ny OPPOSED. n
the cases of Anderson and Whitney. bv
John Clair. Who AYERS III warrants being
registered in conformity with law. are ca
ted 10 he paid before those @. the REALTORS.
John Klein lntervene- III the salt # Ne
N,!len. claiming that he Is tie holder o..
these securities to the t1no;.nt OF S.l''5i g.
AID. being registered long anterior - tie
REALTORS demand for registration. he ) en-
titled TO be paid before. He pray- :or Tile
rejection OF REALTORS demand - ia. IL uc
claim, a preference
By decree OF the Second District Court.
Edward F. Spearing Vas appointed a,:n:u-
l-trator of the succession OF hi deceased
brother. Henry T.. Slcalin-. and the appli-
cation OF j. r. Spealin- Was dismissed. :ur
the following reasons: considering the
testimony taken III the controversy between
Edward r. Spearng and john +. >pearin-,
brothers of the deceased. for the ad:I. :ni-tr.-
ton OF their brother estate. and con
-tern. further that the application by
the mother of the deceased for sad admin
i-t.arion has been withdra WI. the court has
come 70 the conclusion thai. under the err
culnstances of the case. Edward +. Spear
lng must have u preference over hi, brother.
john +. Spearng. for the administration OF
the property of the deceased.
In case of this nature. the priority re
; ut4H- from thc ldcl OF having dpf.i''! nt>t
tor the administration o. the estate does
not apply, the question OF priority i CON
tued only to application, tot curatorsu:;, OF
vacant SUGGESTIONS. See az. {. G.
The court. besides. does not consider that
the heir who has DETAINED the character Of
tie deceased by SANDERS and scaudaiouS
suits. brought against him. ought t. be prr-
ferred to another heir. who has equal r.ht,, |
and who has been always on friendly terms
with the deceased brother.
In the United States Circuit Cou"t. Hon |
+. II. Durell presiding. tie case CANE ", of |
J. NJ Douglas ct al. vs.. W. II. Reynolds. |
wherein plaintiffs. by their solicitor, {. L. |
" Li'ney. bring suit in equity for damages
caused by alleged inirin cement OF 4 patent
nr city railroad car Gi,iIn-S. The case
WAS argued yesterday. and the court took
he matter under adv i>rluent.