New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-06-27

nfFIcIAl JOURNAL or THE UNITED STATES
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court.

III In the suit of Livingston and Guthrie VS.
4 the State Auditor, which case involves the
a -opeaing of Bayou Bartholomew, application
for mandamus has been made to compel
the Auditor to warrant on the State Urea
surer in accordance with the contract made
by the plaintiffs with the Board of Public
Works The Auditor denies the legality OF
the legislative act authorizing the opening
of Bayou Bartholomew, and hence his oppo-
sition.
Fourth District Court.
In the important case of the city of New
Orleans, praying for the opening of Moreau
(ChartresI and Casacalvo (Royal) streets,
Judge Theard has dismissed the opposition
of Mrs. Widow Gayle in the matter of open
ing the latter street. and the opposition of
the Levee Steam Cotton Press of New Or
leans in the matter of the opening of Moreau
or Chartres street.
Seventh District Court.
In the case of Charles Petrie VS.. William
III. Cook, Judge Collens has delivered the
following opinion:
This case was tried in December. 1862
and judgement rendered by quasi military
court, when defendant was not represented.
and when the parties were belligerents, the
plaintiff being present within the federal
lines and the defendant absent within the
confederate lines. The proceedings and
Judgment were therefore, null for want of
jurisdiction, according to- the principles
settled by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case OF Dean vs.. Nelson, in
twelfth Wallace.
They also were in violation of the act of
the Louisiana Legislature passed in 1861,
suspending judicial proceedings during the
civil war, which act is not among those set
aside by act l49 of the constitution of 1868,
and must therefore be enforced.
1t is therefore ordered, adjudged and de-
creed that the plaintiffs petition tor the re-
versal of the judgment rendered herein, on
the fourth of December, 1862, beIrefused; and
that the parties have leave to proceed as in
"A suit at issue, but not tried and decided
Thomas Kleinpeter and Z. p. Villiers,
subrogated, VS.. Pike, Lapeyre Il Brother.
The facts of this case, presented by the
petition, are as follows:
On the second of May, 1867, plaintiff in
trusted to defendants, his bankers, a draft
drawn by him on I. W. Gardner 81 Co.,
Jefferson, Texas, for 1899 80. He claims
that at the time he so intrusted the draft,
Gardner IL Co. were solvent, and if due dill
gence had been used by defendants in send
ing drafts for collection, it would have been
paid.
Furthermore, if it had not been paid, and
he had received prompt notification he
could have taken steps to attach the prop
erty of Gardner & Co. in this city. He
ing the draft direct to Jefferson, had it
transmitted by way of Shreveport and in
consequence thereof one month elapsed
before presentation of the same, by which
time Gardner Il Co. had failed. Hence the
suit.
The following is Judge Collen's decision:
In this case, the court considered that the
circumstances do not bear out the theory
that would make G.. A. Pike, of Shreveport,
,hof;t Of Jafa ;,,%
ty of agents of the plaintiff, for the collec-
ton of the draft
|. G.. A. Pike was not expressly suggested
as substitute, but merely as the CORE
spondent " of defendants, and as one who
attended to such business for defendants.
.. The correspondence shows that the de-
PENDANTS themselves so understood the rela-
ton, and that G. A. Pike must act under
directions and account to them, since de-
PENDANTS in their first letter to G. A. Pike do
not inform him of plaintiffs ownership, but
simply say please find herein for collec-
ton and credit our Sl5,90S-J. A. Gardner
81 Co, ten per cent-S939 90;" and 4
3. Defendants did not disclose to plai' : If
the name of G. A. Pike (nor was it az rtl)
so that the latter should rather be rec rded
as clerk or employee of defendants than as
a substitute.
That even were G. A. Pike substitute
appointed with plaintiffs ',.nquestionable
authorization, still defendsl6ts were guilty
Of such laches that they must be held re-
sponsible; ~ they undertake the business
Of exclusively CORES ending with him. of
directing him, and clf supervising him in the
tiligent PERFORMANCE of his duty, yet
though their correspondence, from the first
'eply, disclosed neglect and.dereliction on
he part OF 81. A. Pike, they took no steps
o inform. plaintiff thereof; nor to urge G.
4. Pike to proper diligence and correct pro- |
edurte; ~ they induced plaintiff to believe
NJ It their correspondent Though residing |
"a Shreveport would duly attend to the |
collection, and had correspondents in Jetfer |
son: but it turned out otherwise, and de- |
PENDANTS did not inform plaintiff of the non
consequent upon their correspon-
dents fault till the presumption OF the loss
of the debt had arisen.
That the protest and other evidence in |
the case are sufficient to raise the presump |
ton that Gardner s. Co. failed and became
after the time when the draft |
would have been payable, had it been pre-
scented for acceptance and payment in due |
course; and the onus was on the defendant |
to rebut this prima facie state of case.
Judgment in favor of +. NJ. Nilliers, sub
rogated to Thomas Kleinpeter against de-
tendants, as prayed for.
Fifth District Court.
The fourth Thursday of each month has
been assigned as the day for the trial Of all
cases and rules during the vacation.
On Saturday. the first of July, cases will
be called in this court for the next Novem-
Der term.
Matters in the Fifth District Court, as in
the other courts, wore dull aspect yester-
unusual at this dolce far nie,tte
season of the year. There was, however,
an opportunity afforded the lawyers to
pleasantly while away time. The last
number of Eeery Saturday had lust come
in, and owing to certain feature in it, it
no little attention. This was
a splendidly executed cartoon. representing
in graphic outlines the heads of notable
characters as seen every day on the streets
of New Orleans. There were politicians.
lawyers and other prominent men. all of
whom were Immediately recognized, and
called forth no little merriment.
Sixth District Court.
In the case of the Carondelet Canal and
Navigation Company VS.. the City. claiming
to recover S35, 900 for two draining ma
chimes seized by the federal authorities
during the war. and afterward turned over
to. the drainage commissioners, Judge
Cooley has rendered Judgment against the
city, condemning her to pay $500 per
month from September 10, 1862, to January
10, 1864, for the use of the Knox, and $500
per month for the same time on the Com
muney, with costs of suit. The court holds
that by the act of 1861, transferring the
assets, etc, of the drainage commissioners
to the city, the city became responsible for
all claims against the board.
In the case of the British Steamship
Navigation Company VS.. Sibley, Guion &
Co, the court has rendered Judgment for
defendants.
This was a suit to recover 100000 for
Il no oil lot