New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-29

| ss ~ u II q g $780, I; g
| ssToF, FP}(s t6be la dawn vcald,
| kqu n III Ito Go16g11, md We think TIT
eh& Aioongeions 1aksehjA IL 11AnhetHhR
H5hks ~ sIalk n ayshas, 3ee) meets ths
-! 1 n Y Sc. NJ ~ tAs deAlsr Seo
y taaig /! s g / ! y pIcaisd - e q:
aepocit 6uiAde, It TbeUone9 q original On
Try, md would 10 conclusive on tia bank;
IL however, the book y sent to be written
up AktofWaEd, II b not -am original entry,
and may be examined into"
Even thus. modified, the dectrine makes
the hank iAbIe. The bank-bo0k of the
plainti9 was not sent - DO written up ef.
bank. and tho entry therein made in his
presenSe, # the entry was due to an error,
ft u nQmeIthe less ~ IN "0nginal entry"
conclnmyo ON the hank. I have not been
able to perceive any Foundation for tho dis
tinctio9 attempted to be made by tho de-
fendant's counsel. If tho bank 10 bound,
and ean not. allege error 70 relieve it.elf,
when the entry i Of credit for more than
vae actually deposited, By . party Of rea-
sonink, the entry IL conclusive when mo de-
posft at Al il made. IF the proof Of error
could AFFORD relief in ono case, it would do
% In the other.
Under tho two decisions hereinbefore
quoted, rendered by our Supreme Court, I
ann Of tho opinien the defendant il liable to
tho plaintiff for the amount Of credit
allowed in the bank book.
Intereottng Point In Connection With
Mutual Aid AsseciatiSns.
Before this court is being tried tho case of
Thompson vs.. the Louisiana Mutual Aid
Association. the facts in ~nich are - fol-
lows: 80 ts
Tho wife of Thompson had taken out a
policy in tho above company for $500, and
now being dead. her husband sues to re-
cover ON the same. The testimony shows
that when Mrs. Thompson insured her life,
that she need be at no trouble to observe
tho time when her assessments would be-
come payable, % he would promptly notify
her 4. :.
', All assessments had been regularly paid
up to No. IL. On . certain Tuesday after
said assessment was made, person called
on the solicitor and informed him that Mrs.
posed, on business connected with the pay
ment. The collector, thinking the day too
warm, deferred his visit until Thursday,
whcreupon calling to zee Mrs. Thompson,
he found ehe had died ON Wednesday night,
leaving the assessment unpaid. q 8
According to the terms of the policy
thirty days were given to policy holders
within which to pay assessments, after
they had been made, and . further period
Of twenty days was given to pay, provided
reasonable excuse could be offered for not
having paid within tho thirty days afore-
said. II appears that friend of the hus-
band rendered the money in pa9mene of the
assessment within the twenty days pre-
scubed, and gave - Thompson's excuse for
previous nonpayment the death of his wife.
The association refused to receive the ten
Anx ali limit hat l~A
Plaintiff testified that NO written notice
bad been served upon him, that the policy
had beon forfeited, and introduced in evi-
de1Ce . printed notice which had been
served ON another member of the associa-
ton, setting forth that unless . certain
assessment were paid, his policy would be
forfeited. The secretary Of the association
testified that no had issued such notices,
but they were to his friends.
Tho result Of this case will undoubtedly
be anxiously looked for by many who are
members of the different aid associations of
our city:
In the case. of John p. Tweed vs. the
Louisiana Mutual Insurance Company, the
jury having had the case committed to
them ON Tuesday last, at half.past three
O'Clock, remained in charge Of the marshal
until yesterday at eleven O'Clock A. NJ, Ia
space Of ninety hOurs), without being able
to agree, it was ordered that they be dis
charged, and that mistrial be certified. !.
In the case of A. P. Lyman ct al vs. Mer-
chants Insurance Company of New Orleans,
the rule taken by defendant ON the twenty
sixth instant was dismissed.
Tho following new rule of court was en-
tered: In all cases, bills of exception must
be presented for signature to the court
within two days after being taken, other
wise they will not meet the approval of the
court. The rule alse specifics that all bills
win be signed if presented within the time
specified, not opposed after due notice
has been given.