New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-02-28
THE COURTS.
Suureme Court Decisions Yesterday

Supreme Court Decisions Yesterday.
TutOrshp of the minor Mary G. Os
bourn-Appeal from the Parish Court Of
Rapides. Appeal dismissed as the appel
lee was cited in his individual capacity.
John H. Kennard ct ais. vs.. A. d. La
fargue, president police jury, parish of
AyOyelles, suit for draft drawn by the
levee inspector OF said parish on the cOllec-
tor of the levee fund, upon a contract for
building Il levee in 1867. on the right bank
of Bayou des Glaizes. at thirty cents per
yard. Judgment affirmed. WHY'D
John Osburn, under tutor, VS.. Henry NJ
Rogers, tutor of Mary C.. Osburn-Appeal
Rapides. Judgment affirmed. Wyly, j.
Harry T. LOssee vs.. John De Lacy, Sheriff,
William J. Beatty, Intervenor-Appeal from
the Ninth District Court, parish OF Rapides:
Judgment of the court q qua avoided and
annulled, with judgment tor the plaintiff,
making his rule absolute, and requiring the
Sheriff to make to him formal transfer OF
the property adjudicated to him, and.to put
him in possession, upon his paying the price
of adjudication. Intervention dismissed,
with costs of Intervention, and appellees to
pay the cost OF appeal. WHY, j:
Balthazar Blanck VS.. Ii Speckman and
wite-Appeal from the Seventh District
Court for the parish Of Orleans, Judge Col
lens. This was an action instituted IN 1868
to annul Judgment rendered in 1859. The
only cause of nullity relied ON by the plant
itf-appellant is found to be that the suit was
an action for damages, that default was
entered, and that this default was con-
firmed and Judgment rendered by the court
without the intervention of a jury. The
court, after citing from the Code of Practice,
under the section of Judgment by De-
fault" says the appellee contends, and so
the court below decided, that the omission
to call jury in that case was an irregular
ity which might have been remedied by ap-
peal, but which can not urged, after a lapse
of nine years, by an action OF nulllty. After
discussing the questions presented in this
case in an able manner. the court affirmed
the Judgment of the lower court. Howe, ).
Irby Mcdaniel Il Co. vs. |. f. Fore Il
Co., Peter Hamilton ct sls-Appeal from
the Fifth District Court, parish Of Orleans.
Judgment in favor of Peter Hamilton ct
ais. affirmed, but reversing the judgment
Quashing the fieri facias, and the rule to
Guash dismissed in both courts. Howell, j.
L. Bloom vs.. T. F. Dixon-Appeal from
the Fifth Judicial District, parish Of East
Feliciana.
The defendant sold to the plaintiff on the
tenth Of October, 1868, house and lot i'll
Dixon, the vendor, obligated to pay two
notes Of $1,000 each, given by kinear. the
vendor of Dixon, from Mrs. Hagerman.
from whom kinear purchased the same
property.
There was mortgage on the property to
secure the payment OF these notes. Dixon
in his contract with Bloom executed his
own obligation in favor of Bloom for $4,000.
and secured the payment of it by mort
>f Ion.
to secure Bloom against the outstanding
mortgage against the property in favor OF
Mrs. Hagerman. 1t seems that Dixon paid
one OF these notes. but the other being un-
paid, Mrs. Hagerman proceeded under her
mortgage to have the property seized and
sold. II was purchased by G. Bloom, and
for the payment of the debt he entered into
| d twelve months .bond. He then sued
Dixon in the present action upon the Obli-
CATION n favor of Mrs. Hagerman, which
he was forced to take up, and prays that the
tract OF land mortgaged to him az an indenl-
nifty be sued to pay the indebtedness in
| Cured BY The failure of Dixon to relieve the
property sold by him to Bloom from the
aforesaid mortgage in favor of Mrs. Hager-
man.
The defense is want of consideration and
| illegality in the contract. In the court be
| low the plaintiff had Judgment in his favor
and the defendant has appealed.
| tits clear that the transaction was illegal
| the price having been paid In an illicit paper
| money, usually called Confederate money
| The defendant swears that he never received
anything from the plaintiff, or anyone else
! for the property but Confederate money
that the sale and the mortgage to Bloom
| We're made the same day, and form ont
transaction. The witness Romley saw the
money paid by Bloom to Dixon, and says
it was all Confederate money. The plea O
prescription it is not necessary to examine
Judgment Of the lower court annuiled
avoided and reversed, with Judgment il
favor Of defendant, and suit dismissed a,
plaintiffs cost. TalaferrO. j.
| j. d. Thompson, liGuidator. VS.. d. Ed
wards-Arpeal from the Fourth Distric,
| Court, New Orleans. Ordered that the
Judgment appealed from be amended as tt
condemn the defendant to pay costs OF the
| lower court, and a. TINS amended bt
| affirmed. Howell, J.
Citizens Bank Va. l.. Grand & Co.. ct al
| Appeal from the District Court, parish o.
POinte Coupee. The defendants seized Ger
tain mules as the property Of their judg
ment debtor, j. C.. Patrick and the plaintiff
enjOined on the ground that the mules were
| its property having been attached as I'M
mOvables by destination to the Normandy
plantation, and as such purchased with thu
| plantation at marshals sale by the plain
| tiff There was judgment in favor of de
| fendants and plaintiff has appealed. Judg
ment affirmed. Howe. j.
l.. Dupre vs.. Thomas b. Helm, G. z
Smith. warrantor-Appeai from the Dis
trict Court, parish of Rapides. Judgn1en
reversed, and that the plaintiff have juds
ment against the defendant recognizin!
the plaintiff as the owner of certain lands
and that the claims of defendant agains
the warrantor and Of the warrantor in re
convention against the defendant be re
versed. Howe, j.
BENJAMIN NJ. Howell--Appeal from tn
Sixth District Court of New Orleans. Th
defendants have appealed from a judgmen
against them for $1,000 in damages for tn
arrest of the plaintiff on debt due by hir
to the defendant, N. II. Thomas. Jude
| meEt of the court below reduced to $5W
and thus affirmed. Wyly,J.
Succession of Tompkins va. Succession o
William u. Grifin-Appeal from the Paris
Court of Madison. Appeal dismissed.
Peter Anderson vs. Carroll, Hoy & Co
Appeal from the Ninth District Court, paris
of Rapides- Judgment of the court affirmed
Wyly, j.
Fagin-Appeal from the District Court
parish of NatchitOches. The defendant
were indicted for murder and found guilt
Of manslaughter. A motion for new tria
was made on their Behalf, and was granted
From the order granting the new trial an
continuing the case the State has appealed
The appeal must be dismissed. Under th
constitution of 1868 no appeal lies in thi
court in criminal cases, except where
| sorfanca of a certain aeyerity has bee