New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-01-14
NEW ORLEANS SATURDAY, 4,

Answer Of defendant sets forth o. general
denial, and claims that if petitioner did sut-
fer as aforesaid, they were caused by his
own negligence and carelessness.
Seventh District COurt-The Great Race
Between the X. X. Lee and Natchez.
There was fled yesterday in the above
court petition by ID. L. Sedan against J.
w. Cannon-represcnting the steamer K. K.
Lee-in which plaintiff seeks to recover the
sum Of $500 for alleged breach of contract.
The facts, as set forth in the petition. are as
follows: On the seventeenth of October,
1870. said D. L. Sedan, owner of steamer
Belfast. entered into verbal contract with
John w. Cannon. master Of steamer Il. K.
Lee. to take on board the Belfast, October
IS, certain freight, etc, then under charge
of said Il. +. Lee, aud destined for the port
of Natchcz. in the State of Mississippi-the
price agreed upon for such conveyance. ETC..
to be the sum of $3.50.
Petitioner further claims that he made
ali necessary arrangements for the fulfill
mcnt OF his obligation, and refused a large
amount of freight on that account. Being
prepared to receive said freight, as agreed.
lie called upon Captain Cannon to receive
the same. and i: WAS refused 20 be de-
Evered.
On the eighteenth October he notified the
said Captain Cannon that he was in default,
said petitioner. Drays that he may be
awarded the sum of $500 for damages. etc.
Cannon, III his answer, claims that he
made "a contract with the steamer Belfast.
as above mentioned, with the provisO that
said steamer was to load said freight and
depart from New Orleans on the evening OF
October L.. as by the terms of said CannOns
mail contrac. with the government OF the
United States, he was obliged to leave New
Orleans every Tuesday evening, under pen
atty of forfeiture of $3.50.
Havin. waited for the Belfast until P.
NJ. of that day. and that steamer not then
hein. prepared to receive said freight (beinS
then in fact. engaged in taking on a cargo
of salt below the city), and he (Cannon)
well knowing that the Belfast could not. at
that hour. take on said freight aud leave
the city according to terms Of contract. and
no. wishing to leave exposed on the lcvcc
the large quantity of freight already1there.
ne engaged the steamer Belle Lee to convey
the same 70 the city OF NatcheZ for the
agreed price o: nine hundred and fifty
dollars. and he now files suit in reCOnven-
ton in the sum of 500. Two hundred and
tifty dollars for forfeiture of terms of mail
contract. and $50 for excess OF price of
charter paid 70 Belle Lee.
Fourth District Court-Judse Theard.
William Mithoft vs. Auguste I'ohn-
The iuds se said the only question which am
called upon 20 decide il this case. under the
issues and rulings, Is whether the plaintiff ;s
estopDed from enforcing the Judgment rem
dereGi in his favor i'll suit No. II ,25O Of the
Sixth District Court Of New Orleans, enti-
| tied William Mithotf Us Byrne. Vance &
| Co.. as by him now proposed. IN conse-
uonce OF tilc Judgment rendered aGaInst him
| in sri. No i9 of the sixth District Court FOX
the parish OF Orleans. entitled Byrne. Vance
| 4 Co. =. William Mithof. It Is eont"nded
| by defendant that by this last Judgment the
plaintiff. was peTpetually enioined from exc
| cutting OF enforcing the writ OF tieii facias.
! or the Judgment rendered in his favor
against Byrre, Vance & Co. and on the
, other hand, It :s contended b. the plaintiff
| that he WAS only pe-petually enioineu from
executing o. enforcing the writ OF tleTi Ia
| Cias on the ii:0 yment rendered Ill his favor
asains. Byrne, Vance & Co.
The whole controversy rests upon the in
! u,,:ry whether the wO-d used III the decree
! is the proposition on. or the dis unctive con
| junction o.. Whatever may be the opinion
| of the cour. on this point find, By refer
| ence to the record in the suits Nos. l., %,
| 3 and -. ,i,at after the uagmen: Sc: up in
bar was rendered. the plaintiff issned an
alias teri taoias against the defendants,
| Byrnr. Vance & Co.. and said defendants.
| bv their attorneys. on the thirteenth OF
| March. 1859. took rules upon plaintiff to
| G,sasil the same. upon the identical ground
now SCI up by the present defendant in bar
! Is plaintiffs action. This question was
IN said rules fully considered and passed
upon by the Sixth District Court: and
by iud gmen:s rendered on the sixteenth
| OF Mart.l. 1869. and 5: :gned on the twentieth
| of March. 1859. the rules were dismissed,
and the plaintiffs right to proceed under
lis Judgment was fully recognized. From
these Judgments Byrne, Vance 4 Co. have
taken deyolutiye appeal, which is now
pending IN the Supreme Court
Although I might have decided differ
entlvft tlie matter had been before me.
these judgments can not be inquired into
by t,l;, court. and "a" bar to any inquiry
into the meaning Of the Judgment set up in
defense.
Tie plaintiffs case is fully made out. and
give him Judgment "a -t;.lst the defendant
as by him prayed for.