New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-09

sheriff. who claims TO De q cOiOreu man, was
| refused refreshments and received $1,000 as
| exemplary damages therefor, moved for a
| new trial, which has been refused. Counsel
| in his motion, set up: First, that the plain
! tiff was not cOlored man, and that he
! could adduce evidence to establish that fact
| beyond Doubt second, that his compan
! ions who we're refused refreshments also
were. white men; and. third, that the dam
| ages were excessive.
Judge Dibble said that from the evidence
| given he was satisfied that Sauvinet is a
colored man. and that the counsel for the
| defense may look to the Supreme Court for
| relief, if any he had; that the case was an
| annoying one, and he had no wish to re-
| open it.
Abiding to the point of the alleged ex-
| cessiveness of the exemplary damages al
| lowed by the court, Judge Dibble, in sup
| port of his action, cited case which had
occurred in Mississippi, in which a passen-
ger on a railroad had been taken very
short distance-less than fifty feet-bey ond
the regular platform landing and because
of the refusal of the conductor to back his
train to the platform, the passenger, who
did not even wet his feet to reach the land
ing, sued for and recovered $1,000 damages.
Thomas w. Seymour VS.. E. III. Ang0mar
and William Barrett-In this suit, which
was in the manner of a rule nisi, for iniunc-
Court by William Seymour, as receiver, to
prevent his cOpartners from interfering
with him in the discharge of his duties as
receiver. Judge DIbble has delivered an
opinion refusing the injunction.
The Dryades Market Shrimp Case-In
the suit of Schultz va. Bacchouse ct al, con-
corning the sale of shrimp, fish, etc, in the
above named market, in which the plaintiff
enjoined the defendants, because their
stalls were alleged to be improperly To-
Gated, Judge Dibble has dissolved the in
junction and dismissed the suit of plaintiff.
Sixth District Court-Suit Between the
Vicksburg Packets.
Captain Thomas p. feathers and Andrew
Pauley have filed suit in the Sixth District
Court, in which they allege that on March
10, 1870, they contracted with CAPTAIN
Tobin and others, by notarial act, to wit:
THAT, whereas, they are the owners of
several steamboat packets running to and
from the cities of New Orleans and Vicks-
burg, and for the purpose Of harmonizing
the respective intt rests of these appearers
and for the purpose of promoting the pros
perity of the packet business in which they
are engaged, they do by these presents each
for himself bind themselves To the stipula-
lions and agreements, to wit:
1t is mutually agreed between the said
appearers that the steamer Natchez shall
leave on Saturday until the first of Septem-
Der, 1870, and the Pargoud, or her substi-
tute in place of the X. f. Lee, on Tuesday;
and it is mutually agreed that one-fourth
OF the profits made by said steamers during
said time shall be consolidated, and the
amount resulting to be divided equally
between the owners of the NatcheZ and
Pargoud.
And it is further agreed and stipulated
that the steamer Pargoud, during the time
and period of twelve months, commencing
September |, 1870, shall leave the city of
New Orleans on each and every Thursday,
in place of Tuesday, and during the said
twelve months shall extend her trips to the
bends, and during said time it is agreed
that One-fourth of the profits of the said
Natehez and Pargoud, each morning on the
days mentioned, shall be consolidated, and
the results equally divided as above stated
That the said steamers now belong to the
same owners as at the time of the entering
into said contract. That Captain Tobin
continued to observe the terms of said con-
tract until the twenty ninth of March 1871,
when, in actual violation of said contract.
he changed his day of leaving to Wednes-
day and Saturday, to the great injury and
damage OF petitioners, viz: $1,000 for each
and every. week, making in the aggregate TO
this date $4,000, viz: May 6, 1871. Plaintiffs
reserve the right to sue for any further
damages which may ensue in consequence
OF the violation of said contract.
Seventh District Court--Decision by Judge
COiiens.
In the suit of John Grayer VS.. Howard
Mlllspaugh, in which the defendant laid
claim to one-half of the earnings of plain
tiff in the Assessors office, Judge Collens
has rendered a decision decreeing that the
defendant is indebted to the plaintiff
S5552 32, with legal interest from March
%, 1871, and that the firm of Grayer g.
Millspaugh be dissolved, the property of
said firm to be sold by the Sheriff for cash,
an equal part to go to each partner, etc.
Second District CoBrt-Succession of A. Ii.
James-His Widow Put i'm Possession
of the Property.
Upon this application Judge Duvigneaud
OF the Second District Court, has rendered
the following opinion:
Mrs. Louisa Gasquet, widow of A. B.
James, has filed petition before this court,
praying to be put in possession of the
property left by the deceased, the same be-
ing community property
10 this demand the executors in open
court, through their counsel, have declared |
that they had no objections to urge against |
the demand of petitioner.
Alexander Gordon, an alleged creditor of |
the succession, has opposed the demand of |
petitioner on the following grounds, to wit: |
]. That the late A. b. James made a |
will, which has been duly probated, and |
executors also appointed with the seizin |
OF the succession; that the said widow is |
not entitled to usufruct of the one-half of |
the succession.
2. That the deceased has left a minor |
heir.
3. The minor can accept only under bene-
lit OF inventory. The law in this case re-
quires that the succession should be admin
lStered by the executors or administrators
A. This opponent has moved to dismiss |
the executors from OfficeS and the rule is
still pending; the grounds for dismissal are |
that the executors have withdrawn moneys |
out of the bank without orders of the court;
that they have filed two accounts, which
are opposed.
D. That the heirs cannot be put in pos
session, on the ground that minor can not
furnish bond as required by law There
must be a final liquidation of the succession.
i. b. The succession can not be delivered to
1elrs unless petition is presented contra
tlct0r1ly with the executors, and it can not
De done upon motion.
This is the settled jurisprudence of the
State, that when SUGGESTIONS are accented
lnder the benefits of an inventory, the
ame must be administered until they are
entirely lquidated, the heirs being entitled
hen to the residue of the estate, in case it
s shown to be solvent, if not they are dis
harged from all responsibility In this
ase one of the heirs of A. B. James is a
MINOR, the acceptance by him through his
utor must be under the benefit of invento-
y, nay the law makes it so. There being
arge claims pending against the succession
ne tutrlx therefore can not take possession
# the succession in her own name as COM
non In property and as tutrix of her minor
hlld, 1t would amount to an acceptance of
=