New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-17
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court.

Court, adjourned his court at an early hour
yesterday, in order 10 accompany Mr..
Greeley upon an excursion down the river.
seventh District Court-A Personal Issue
between two Attorneys.
Court circles were considerably agitated
this morning upon learning that a personal
difficulty had taken place between two well
known attorneys, during the trial OF a case
before Judge COllens, of the Seventh Dis
trict Court, monday afternoon.
1t is perhaps just as well at this moment
that we should not attempt to give in de-
tail an account OF the passage at words and
the attempt at blows, the latter frustrated
by third parties, seeing that the matter
may not yet have been definitely arranged
Suffice it that after the cessation of hostili-
ties in open court, one of the gentlemen
retired, the otheR who was fined by the
judge for contempt, remaining.
Shortly afterward a member of the bar, a
friend of the gentleman still i'll court, repre-
scented to the court that he feared breach
of the peace was contemplated by the at
torney who had retired, unless he was re-
strained by the court Upon this informa-
ton. Judge Collens dispatched an officer of
the court for the gentleman outside, who
was brought in and commanded to sign a
bond to keep the peace. This the gentleman |
refused to do, stating it is alleged that he
would be sent to prison before he would !
agree to sign bond of that kind.
Judge COllcns finally ordered that the |
gentleman who had been brought into court |
should remain until the gentleman who had |
been fined for contempt could leave the |
building and have time to reach his home. !
which was effected. Yesterday morning the !
gentleman fined for contempt appeared in |
court by order of the Judge, and, after purg-
ing himself of contempt, had his fine re- |
duced by the court from fifty to twenty dol |
lars. Thus the matter stands for the pres
Fifth District Court-Suit Concerning the
Loan and Pledge Association.
+. c. Mahan, late tax collector of the
First District, has entered suit in this court
against j. NJ Burchard, claiming $4,000
damages.
He alleges that in the month of January,
1871. he, being a stakeholder in the Loan
and Pledge Association of this city, entered
into agreement with Burchard, also
stakeholder in said association whereby he
dMahan) was to he elected as president and
X. II. Wood, cashier. at the annual election
for officers of that organization, to be held
in that month that in furtherance of such
agreement Burchard obligated himself to
cast the entire number of votes (150l to
which he was entitled as a stakeholder, for
the officers above named that in view of
such obligation Mahan purchased 265 shares
of the said association, at prices ranging
from thirty -seven to fifty dollars per share,
which was the number requisite, in addi-
ton TO the $50 held by Burchard, to insure
the election of himself and Mr.. Wood
Mahan sets up that when the election took
place Burchard, in violation of his agree 3.
ment with plaintiff, cast his votes for his
opponent, thereby defeating his election as
president.
Plaintiff claims that in consequence of
this action on the part of Burchard he has
suffered loss through the depreciation i'll
value on the 265 shares OF stock purchased
specially on the strength of said agreement
to secure such election OF Si6O5; further
loss of $1,000, to which he would have been
entitled for salary as president of said
association besides a loss of $4,000
in consequence of his funds being
thus tied up in said shares, other
investment of his capital; all of which
amounts to $1,000, the sum claimed in
damages.
Second District Court-The suit of Mrs
Myra Clark Gaines.
Joseph Fuentes ct al VS.. Mrs. Myra Clark
Gaines.-This celebrated case, involving
large landed interests, will come up upon |
its merits in the Second District Court.
Judge Duvigneaud, on Saturday next, the
twentieth instant. The result of this case
will be looked for with no little interest.
sixth District Court.
Judge Cooley has delivered an opinion in
the case of Green & Elder VS.. d. c. Byerly.
decreeing judgment in favor Of the de-
PENDANT. The facts evidenced in this suit
will be found of interest to the general
public, and are as follows:
The plaintiffs are real estate brokers' and
they allege that defendants employed them
i'll that capacity to sell property he owned
in this city, situated at the corner of Jose
phine and Prytania streets, and consisting
of a house and two lots of ground. :
They claim that they introduced a pur-
chaser to the defendant; that the price pro- q
posed by him was such as the defendant l
had agreed 10 take. but subsequently
changing his mind. afterward refused; and !
that subsequently to this refusal that de- /
PENDANT sold the same property through the y
intervention of another broker without 3
having withdrawn the same from their p
hands, to the party introduced by them to t
him as purchaser. 1t is the theory of the
plaintiffs that they are entitled to their
regular commissions, because they intro
duced the party, Del Bondio, who subse-
quently became the purchaser, to the de-
PENDANT.
The facts elected in evidence hardly bear
out the allegations of the plaintiffs. 1t is
at the best, matter of doubt in my mind
whether the limit placed on the property by |
Byerly was seventeen OF eighteen thousand 4
dollars. There is perceptible discrepancy c
IN relation to this point in the testimony of b
the two partners, Green & Elder, and ;
Byerly swears positively that he limited the
cdIc DIT eighteen thousand dollars. at the | IL
same time observing that he might be in a
duced to take something else under circum- "
stances mentioned by him. r
The purchaser introduced by the plain d
titfs offered seventeen thousand dollars and p
his offer having been rejected by Bverlv. .
plaintiffs appear to have abandoned nego- ~
tiations with him, and it is not proven AIat d
they offered the property to any one else. A Il
short time afterward the same property was r.
sold to Del BOndiO, the purchaser intro +
duced by plaintiffs, for the sum of 500. 800.
the furniture in the house; the
two lots and the house being estimated in =
the act of sale at Sl7 800. Under these cir 81
cumstances the plaintiffs claim a right to d.
their commissions. They urge that this right &c
Is conferred by the custom among brokers, a
and, besides, is guaranteed by law OF
II SO far as the custom alleged, it is sufficient sa
to say 1t has not been established. The two o.
plaintiffs, while swearing categOrically to II
the existence of such a usa &c, were not able al
to say that within their recollection a single ei
case had ever occurred in which the custom II
was invoked and applied. Two other brok- d
crs, MesSrs. NoisOn and HodgsOn, swear to n
this custom ALSO but one of them can recol- | h
lect but one case where it was applied. and | j.
the other rccollects about two or three, On | II
the other band. the defendant denies any | &c
knowledge of such usage, and his denial | al
is supported by the testimony of two brok- &c
ers Messrs. Davis and Frerct who swear ~,
there is no such custom generally acted
upon; and they go further and say that
among the real estate brokers there is no !
fixed rulp or usaUp that pVervona afternr+D / Ii