New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-06-06
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court-Jury Term-The
Chattanooga Railroad Bond Contro-


Yesterday. A panel of some three hundre
Jurors had been drawn, but only about one
fourth of them answered to their names
The case of G. Esnard ct al VS.. the city G
New Orleans was fixed for trial by the jury
The rule nisi asking for an injunction il
the case of c. H. SlOcOmb and j. l.. Wei
ster VS.. James Graham, said injunction 4
restrain said Graham from lndorslng tn
bonds of the New Orleans Mobile ant
Texas Railroad Company, came on at on
O'Clock yesterday.
s. Belden, Attorney General, fled an in
PREVENTION on the part of the State of Lou
isiana in which he adopts the answer file.
BY James Graham. Auditor.
The case was then submitted to the court
counsel being allowed till to-day at tire,
O'Clock p. M. to furnish briefs. The mail
point in the case is this: Whether the gran
of the Legislature to the New Orleans, Mo
bile and Texas Railroad Company is dona
ton or not.
Fourth District Court.
The second week of the jury term in
Judge Theards court commenced yesterday
morning. The following cases had beer
fixed for trial: j. Frederick MajOnier VS.. F
Stringer; Edward b. Briggs VS.. +. NJ. Fisk
John Grant VS.. George c. Sebastian; Hardie
VS.. Stevenson.
Second District Court-Decision by Judge
DuNIGucduu
Succession of Rachel Cameron.-In this
suit, which involves some interesting points,
Judge Duvigneaud has rendered decision,
reviewing the case as follows:
F. M. Fisk has filed an opposition to the
account presented by his tutor and father
F. M. Fisk, of the administration of his
tutOrship.
The opponent had previously brought
suit against his tutor for alimony the same
has been cumulated with the opposition.
The plaintiff and opponent opposes most
of the items of said account, and prays that
the same be amended as to credit him with
the sum of S29,95S so, being half of the
amount of property composing the commu-
nifty existing at time of the death of petit
toners mother, as is shown by the inven-
tory taken May 6, 1858, by Abat, then a
notary in this city.
Opponent further alleges that his father
having contracted a second marriage since
the death of his mother is not and never
was entitled to the usufruct of the share in
the community left by opponents mother.
Opponent also prays to be put in posses
sion of his mothers share in said com
muniy.
Defendant, in answer to the allegations of
the opponent, wherein he claims TO be rut
in possession of the community share, saws
that his late wife died in 1850. and not
having disposed by last will of her share in
said community, he is entitled to the usufruct
thereof during his natural life, and he
denies having contracted second marriage.
Defendant has also fled plea of prescrip-
ton, on the ground that plaintiff and oppo-
nent was emancipated by marriage in
August, 1865, and that minor so emanci-
pated has the right to demand from his tutor
an account of his administration, and that
prescription begins to run from that date.
The main question to be decided in this
controversy is to ascertain whether the
father and tutor of opponent has or has not
a second marriage since the
death of Rachel. Cameron, his wife and op-
ponent's mother
Ga the solution-of this question depends
the whole case, for if the defendant has |
really contracted second marriage he has |
thereby lost the usufruct given to him by |
law of the share of his wife in the commu- |
nifty If, on the contrary, he has not con-
tracted second marriage, he is entitled to |
retain the usufruct during his natural life, |
and his child has no right to call him to an
account of his tutorship, by the reason that
ne administers no property of his ward but |
his own.
1t is not amiss to state here at once that
he share of Rachel Cameron, opponents
mother, IN the community property, has
,een settled, and ascertained to be of $4,000:
|
Judgment of this court, all the property
the community has been ad-
the defendant, the surviving hus-
and, at their appraised value; that sub
on the twenty-fifth of June, 1856.
y the consent and advice of family meet
ng, and in order to erase and cancel the
eneral mortgage resulting from said ad-
ldication, the defendant herein has CON
ented and given special mortgage, by act
hnfpra A hat h., |
q this city, on certain piece of property
ally described in said act and appraised TO
sum of 1900; the said mortgage was in |
ended to secure the rights Of his minor
bid for the amount due him, say $4,000, and
lterest. s.-sHass-...-.s
After careful and minute examination
the conflicting testimony adduced in this
ise, have arrived at the irresistible con- I
usion that the defendant, f. NJ. Fisk, has
OF contracted second marriage with Ann
onway, as alleged.
This case represents some very melancholy
atures, as much on the part of the son as 1
4 the part of the father. 1t is useless for
lie court to revive them, for the public |
orals have nothing to gain in such dis
osures.
The plaintiff having failed to prove salts G
ctorily that his father has contracted a i
cond marriage, his suit for an account t
ust be dismissed.
AS regards the action for alimony con- s
cted with this action, the court is not pre- +
red to pass a judgment on such demand.
ne allegations OF the petition are supported
the testimony of the petitioner alone, 4
ID denied by the defendant The testi- .
ony OF the doctor, under whose care the =
tltloner is now placed, in my opinion, is I,
e best evidence which this case is suscep -
Die of and that testimony has not been T.
cred. However, | will leave that cues e
N open for future trial n u
AS regards the oppositions to the account =;
is useless to examine and pass upon then. :;
r the account itself. The testimony hav- q,
2 satisfied me that no second marriage has "
ken place. the surviving spouse. the de-
ldant in this case, is entitled to the usu-
let of the share of the communities prom
" belonging to his deceased wife. and o
lerited by her child during his natural y
e. The account and all the other plead Ii
g must be set aside and rejected.
1t is therefore ordered, adiudged, and de- ~
eed that the opposition filed to the 81
mologation of this account be rejected, s.
d that the account itself be also set aside \
d rejected, it being null and void; and it y
further ordered that the petition for ali Z;
my cumulated with this action be placed Il
the docket of the court for future action, Il
2 court reserving the rights of the plain a
In the prosecution of the same, plaintiff y
wing the costs of this suit. y
Says the Vicksburg Times: 81
I