New Orleans Republican., 1871-02-22

| hodv that the Sneaker has affixed his sig-
| natvre to enrolled bill tor the relief OF }. u.
NiA0n' WILLIAM VIGERS,
Chief Clerk.
| To the Honorable President and Members Of the
Senate:
| am directed to inform you that the
House has concurred in the Senate amend
ment to House bill No. LAG.
'''N' WILLIAM VIGERS,
So Chief Clerk.
To the Honorable President and Members OF the
Senate:
The House has concurred in Senate
amendment to House bill No. .O9
WILLIAM VIGERS:
Chief Clerk.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr.. Pierce presented petition ol 'he
Board of Managers of the Orphans home'
Seventh street, New Orleans. ASKING f"r. ald
which was referred to the Committee on
| Charitable Institutions.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
Mr.. Raw, from the Committee on Judi
ciarv reported favorahly, with amend
| ments, on Senate bill No. $50, to be entitled
an act to authorize Eugene Mccarthy to sue
the State of Louisiana.
Laid over.
Also. an original bill to be entitled an act
to define and regulate the costs ct clerks,
etc. and to provide the mode OF collecting
payment for transcript of appeals.
Laid over.
Also. submitted the following report:
To the Honorable President and Members OF the
Senate:
Tie judiciary committee, to whom was
referred Senate bill No 206, directing the
| Treasurer of the State to pay Charles
Kilsham a warrant issued by James Gr,-
| ham. Auditor. on the Treasurer OF the state,
| in favor of 5. A. Isaac or order. and which
was nurchased by said kilsham from said
Isaac. have had said bill under considera-
| tion. and respectfully submit the following
! report:
| The evidence taken by the committee in
! writing and which we herewith submit,
| shows that on the sixteenth vi August,
| 1870. James Graham, Auditor Of Public Ac-
| counts, issued his warrant directing the
| Treasurer of the State to pay to the order
| of $. A. Isaac twelve thousand one hundred
and twenty ($l2, 1907 dollars. cllargeable to
| the interest tax fund" This warrant was
predicated on sundry interest coupons, de
| scribed on the back OF said Warrant. 1t
| appears from the evidence OF Mr.. kllShaw,
Who is a banker and deals i'll securities of
this kind. that on the same date the
| warrant was issued, Mr. Isaac, tine
person to whose order it was made payable.
applied to him. at his banking house to sell
the warrant, and not being personally ac-
Guanted with Mr.. Isaac. he declined TO
purchase without a reference 10 some per-
! son to identify him. Isaac referred TO the
| Canal Bank, and to Mr.. Newman. broker
having an office near by, who sent his clerk
| to Mr.. kilshaw to identify Isaac, upon
which kilshaw purchased the warrant.
| being we'll acquainted with Gralaln's sig
| nature. and the warrant beng IN proper
form. and stating the consideration. by Il
reference to the coupons on which 1t was
| predicated.
From Mr. Graham's testimony We. learn
| that at the time he issued the warrant he
| had no suspicion the coupons. the con
sideration of the warrant were not genuine.
| but that two or three days after the war
| rant was issued his suspicious were aroused
that there was something wrong about 1t.
| but he did not become satisfied of this fact
until about the first OF September. On the
rhirtv-tirst of August Mr.. Graham published
a notice to the public that payment OF the
warrant in question had been stopped. This
advertisement was called to Mr.. kilshaw' 5
attention by Mr.. Graham. on the following
| day which was the first notice Mr. kllslaw
| had of the facts.
Mr.. Mavbin. a broker long engaged in
| dealing in such securities. testified that he
never applied to the Auditor to know
| whether a warrant was genuine or not,
when offered TO him for sale; and MIR. Gr.t-
| ham SAYS that he. IA Auditor. Is only al,-
Piled to to know whether warrants offered
for sale are genuine when there are susni-
| cious circumstances connected with them.
Mr.. kilshaw paid Mr.. Isaac. in part.
| 5000 for said warrant, III check on the
| Canal Bank. the original of which check IS
in evidence, and dated the same day as the
| warrant which is conclusive evidence that
the warrant was purchased by Mr.. kilshaw
| on that day. and on the day following Mr.
Isaac had on deposit i'll the Canal Bank
| $500.
It appears that Mr.. Isaac was suhse-
ouertlv prosecuted for the forgery OF the
coupons for which this warrant was is
sued. and was acquitted. The question
for our consideration is, whether the State
is in equity bound to pay this warrant to
| Mr.. kilsIaw. the purchaser. the considera-
ton for which it was given having failed.
The solution Of this question depends on
the consideration. whether Mr.. kilshaw pllr-
chased this warrant in good faith, and under
| circumstances not calculated to create Sis
piciou as to The consideration On which it
| was based.
| Mr.. kilshaw is banker, and is engaged
in trading III securities of this kind. The
warrant is payable to the order OF Isaac.
| and is in the usual form in which such OBJ
legations are issued, and is signed by the
| Auditor There is no question as to the
| genuineness of the warrant, nor as to its
form. He knew Mr.. Graham's signature
well. In purchasing, the only other thing
he had to satisfy himself about was whether
the person offering to sell the warrant was
the person in whose favor it was issued.
He demanded references on this point, and
the Canal Bank and a neighboring broker
were referred to, and the latter identified
Mr.. Isaac. There is no question but
that Mr. Isaac. to whom the warrant was
made payable, was the identical person who
sold the warrant to Mr. kilsll;tw. At the
time of the purchase no notice had been
given that the payment of the warrant had
been stoppcd. Such notice was not given
until the thirty-frst OF August. fifteen days
after the purchase. and the price paid toI
the warrant was eighty five cents on the
dolIar-only few points below the quota
BILE price of such securities, which difference
Mr. Mayhin says is common. What more
could have been required OF Mr.. kllshaW
had he applied to the Auditor to know
whether this warrant was genuine, OF
predicated on good consideration on
the day he purchased The answer
would have been in the affirmative, as Mr.
Graham SAYS his suspicious were aroused as
to the genuineness of the coupons two or
three davs aftcrward. Are there any
grounds for suspicion, that Mr.. kllsfaw dld
not. in this matter acquire this warrant III
perfect good faith and without any cllcum
stance that ought to have created any sus
picion that the consideration for which Tho
warrant was given was not good If there