The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1871-07-22
JUN TERM, 1871.


fterwards in the way of advances,
which plaintiff did not comply with;
leld, that the note was good, AMI judg-
nent Observation-Disclosures
Wansly vs.. Wiilis.-Where defendant
debt an.l offered to pay
in Confederate money; held, that pre-
scription was interrupted. Judgment
affarmed.-Taliaferro.
Kilhourne rs. Pennehakar, Ex'r.-
reversed; will of kiibourne
held valid.-Taliaferro.
Nugent va. Randolph, Tutor.-Re-
lnande(l, at defendant scost .-TaliaferrO
Hughes, admir-, VI. Patterson ct al
Judgment affirmed, except as to order
for sale Of Patterson share in proper
~. Case remanded, ai Defendants cost.
Ruth Rains va. j Chaff;, 4 Bro ct
al.-Heli, that u third person claiming,
by opposition, proceeds Of sale in sher-
iff's hands, and asserting superior
right, is not required to make oath to
the facts upon which his demand is
based.-Howell.
State vs. r. w. acknowledgement
afiirmed.-HOwe.
State VS.. Riley ct als.-Defendants
waving trial by jury, We're sentenced
to hard labor by the parish court Of
Morehouse; held that the Parish Judge
acted within the law.-Howc.
State VS.. Axiom.-The plea that the
prisoner was not served with correct
jury list must be made prior to YER
dict Judgment affirmed.-Howe.
State va. Toney Vester.-A ffirmed.-
Howe.
State VS.. Jolly Gasting.-tieid that
notes, or bills of national banks are
"Unite.l States currency" Affirmed
Howe.
The State VS.. Endom.- Defendant is
Il iivery-statae keeper and runs drays,
hacks, &C., for hire. This was an ac-
ton to enforce collection Of licenses
upon each hack, dray, &C., SO kept.
Held-that classifications 20, p and %
of Revenue Act of 1869, authorizing
such license, or tax, upon drays, &C.,
is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Judgment of
court below affirmed. --Ludeling.
Barrett 4 LeSassier vs. q. w. Nc
Ginty. Affirmed.-Wiley.
Morgan, admir- VIZ. Kinnard ct al
a ffirlne,i.-Lude
Watts 4 Co. vs.. A. X. Henry.-Held
that resident of Frank lin may he pro-
ceeded against in Catahoula in the
Court which originally rendered juttg-
ment, tH have said judgment revived,
and that the prescription Of twelve
months bond given for property seized
under such Judgment, does not affect
the judgment. Misunderstanding.
Yale, Jr. Il Co. W.. handle 4 Co.
Held that an injunction t" restrain eX-
ecutton Of Judgment, does not suspend
prescription on Judgment during pen
dency OF injunction suit Affirmed
Ludeling.
Parish OF MOrehOuse We. l'arist, of
had power tn transfer all uncOllected
taxes in that portion of Morehouse in
corpOrated into Richland, to the parish,
of Richland. A firm ed.-Ludeling.
Ludeling va. Affirned.-
Howe. U-udeling reeused.)
a. NJ. Ross NJ. Harvey Adams. AT
rirme.l-HOwe.
Payne W. Ferguson, curstor.-Af-
rrmed.-wyley.
Mrs. y. "A. Bell VIZ. Silbernagel 4 Co.
Held, that in Il suit to annul 4 judg-
nlent, all the cn-owners must be made
parties. Judgment to dismiss affirmed.
-Wyley.
r. & r. w. Richardson vs.. $. W..
his minor son, under certain circum-
stances, by engaging counsel to defend
minors rights Of property. Affirmed.
John Ray VS.. j. r. Tatum, admir-
The administrator failing to pay over
1885 to plaintiff, who had been credi-
tor to that amount in the tableau of the
succession; held, that administrators
property may be seized and sold to pay
the Observation-Disclosures.
Murphy vs.. Lewis.-Where plaintiff
and defendant reside out of the State,
but defendant owns land and for the
past three or four years has spent half
his time in the State: held, that the
courts of Louisiana have jurisdiction
ratiOne Observation-Disclosures.