New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-07

nav for what is done. For actlons wllhou'
words, either written or spoken are pre-
sumptive evidence OF IA contract when '.'s
are done under circumstances that ha."r
ally imu]v a consent to such Il contract.
The court. after asserting that IL was
clear that the estate i'll question had pceh
enriched hy the industry anu patien' car
of the servant i'll question, goes on U" S'a':
that it gathers from the record that 'tas'
contract existed between deceased III" INV
onnonent by which she was to he com
pensated In answer, the appellees SET up |
that deceased lived with the opponent seN-
nraJ wears before his death, as his concuhlpo'
and was so living when he died, an" some
evidence to show this was lntrouuceu oii
the trial. The court says " IN tne MS.
place the evidence ON this point ooeS MOI
make the truth of the avermtnt very cltai,
and in he second place. II 1t ana, me lae.
as alleged would not III Itself Vltft't '"'
claim OF opponent An employer cannot pay
of a female employee by robblnS her "i neg
virtue Such IA method of eXting'llsilinS III
OBLIGATION is not known ~ the law.
III concuoinage I'D been alleged On"
Droycd to have been the motive anu t'"sc
of the parties living together III 'ir sum-
house i'll the first instance aii" ',9 :,,;
vices in question 10 have bcel merely ih;i-
dental 10 si,ch Il state of living. our coiirlu-
s;,n ,u;obt have been different; but -licl IS
MOI the alteration much less the proof ana
we certainly must not presume 'h,' S'''"
WAS the tact. III NicAs IS. b,ichie' . ~, p;
, where coucubinHge, though proFcu, On"
NOT ;pDcar to have been tn" motive Oh the
association oi' OF Wiii''' 'n' 't' "
tL,. court Martin j.. said:
-. We can not view this circumstance AZ
nrcscntin. or destroying any nights with
She NAV have Oh the defendant Inr Iclhi'i-
Grafton and perhaps II increases ms OBI
cation IN il moral point OF we" ol "oihS
he, Justice. instead OF itsstnlhs II iH
legal. . ooh,.i T., 70
| cover. and we fix the amount at s9t', with
| interest from judicial demand. Judgment
in accordance appellees to pay costs OF both
courts Howe J.
H. Kendall, Carter W =. {. iiiiamS: au-
inistgator-Appeal from the Ninth JUDI
| cial District parish OF NatchltocheS. JnaS
ment auuullcd, avoided and reversed. oppo-
| sitin oycrruled and dismissed, and the
notes Cancelled and annulled. and the adj
1nini,trator's account, so far As relates 10
| the opposition of the plaintiff. be approved
| and homologated the plaintiff paying costs
| in both courts. Taliater1o. }.
William Y. keary ct al. vs. Syivest Du-
cote-Appeal from the Seventh judicial
| District. parish of Avoyelles. Judgment OF
the lower court so far AS decrceing defend,
| ant to par two hundred dollars AS cost OF
rciustating certain building upon the land
of plaintiff. annullcd. avoided and reversed.
| In all other respects Judgment affirmed. the
plaintiff to pay cost OF appeal. lana
| ferrO. J.
| Mary v Price. for herself and as tutrlx.
VS.. Sarah Z. Cumnings-Appeal from the
Ninth District Court. parish of Rapides.
| Judgment OF the lower court annulicd,
| avoided and reversed. and the case remand
| ed to the court of the first instance TO be
proceeded with according to law. the de
tcndant and appellee paying costs
A. Manners vs.. Jacob Barker ct aiS-Ap'
peal from the district court, parish OF ST
Bernard. The plaintiff enioincd an eXecu-
tory process upon several grounds. and the
defendant moved to dissolve the injunction
with damages and from the Judgment dis
| missing this rule the appeal Is taken Plaln-
| tiff argued that the order was merely an IN
| tcrocutorv decree. from which no appeal
| lies. The court after showing that in this
case the order was virtually decision OF
| the Injunction case upon Its merits quotes
| from the case OF Riley vs.. Lynd. 5 NJ. ~.
in which an appeal from similar decree
was maintained and then goes on IL say ::
| The district Judge considered the copy OF
| the act of mortgage i'll tins case maintained,
because TO his certificate that it is Il true copy
the notary has added exceptions and !imita-
| tons showing that it is not a true copy. II
| reads:
L.
and for the parish of Orleans. and custodian
| of the records of Hugh Madden (notary. de-
| ,.easeth duly commissioned and qlallcd.
do certify the above to be a true ana cor
rect copy OF the original act in the records
of Hugh Madden, notary. deceased. except
such parts as are oblitcrated by beng burnt
l,v fire. which destroyed said NotarF Mad
dens Office. which parts are marked upon
the copy thus: J.
The court continuing says: This means
that the certified COPY Is a true copy OF the
original "a it now exists, but that the orig
inal itself is injured, or to some extent de
faced bv the ire which destroyed the nota-
rvs office and the only proper question Is,
j. il an authentic act Of mortgage tor the debt
evidenced by the notes accompanying It. ol
identified with it. affecting the property
ordered to be seized. and avalab bic IL til"
hands of third holders of said notes . Ii l.
authentic because it is passed or executed
before a notary and two witnesses. and the
obligations are not such as leave any doub'
ABBOTT the debt secured the notes eyidcnc
iao the debt. the description of the prop
erty mortgaged and effect OF that mortgage
;,s inlparting Il confession OF Judgment III
favor of any holder of the notes. These
the material and essential recitalS being
contained in the act, the uneSsentia! and
immaterial words defaced do not affect the
f validity of the act. We can not concur II
the opinion of the district judge that the
additions in the certificate OF the notary
as they appear destroy the suciencE o
the certificate or authenticity of the cvi
f dpnce on which the order of seizure and sal,
. was granted.
The copy certified by him is not an exac
literal copy of the original as it was wheI
first executed. but is of that now existing: ant
this original is an authentic act. lie uset
words III his certificate to show how CERTAIN
: defects appeared. and how they occurred
If he was not authorized to certify to tina
last fact it NAV be considered surplusage
/ and viii not affect the validity OF the act "a
l making proof of the orr final as ii really ex
! lists. We are satisfied that the injunction
, should be dissolved. and the defendant
l. Barker, be allowed to proceed with his exc
cutorv process. Judgment OF the lowe
e court reversed. and Judgment against til
= plaintiff and his surety IN sOtido for ten pc
. cent of The amount of Che Judgment Ell
: Joined az damages and costs i'll both Court-
e Howell, j.
: Succession OF CyprieE Escotfie-Appc'
. from the parish court parish OF Rapdc~
: This is a siiit between i number OF her
claiming the property of the deceased /
the hands Of the curator They claim Il
e children and descendants OF Il sister 4
r deceased. while others intervene. al!egn
V them selves to be the legitimate children G
r . brother. and deny that he had a sister
f The legitimacy OF the intervenorS was cor
4 tested ana decided adversely TO them, an
t from a Judgment i'll favor of the o,l2ina
d petitioners they have appealed. The corr
: after pointing out the errors and nacci
l. .cies OF the original petition says: IL
G difficult to comprehend or imagine how sue