New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-14
ale,r Orleans $epublifa1s.
OFFICIAL JOURNAL Of THE UNITED STATES
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF NEW ORLEANS
THE COURTS.
Eighth District COurt-DecisiOn by Judge
Dibble-The Right of Counsel to See
Clients Accused Of Crime.

~
ception of the defendants that there was III
cause of action and that the city was not re
spOusi1e for the acts of said Bowen.
The iud.e. i'll his written opinion. SAYS
That in accordance with article 90. OF ih,
Revised Statutes. counsel for a person ;c
rused Of crime shall have free access t,
him at and during all reasonable hours.
That whoever violates this right must b'
himself responsible. 1t may not be proven
saws the court. III this case that the plaintiff
was entitled to admission at the time and
under the circumstances. complained OF. buI
his allegations disclose Sufficient cause OF
action.
Municipal corporations are responsible for
the wrongful acts OF theIr officers. II their
acts are done i'll pursuance OF a general atl-
thoritv. Ahott, So. The exception was,
therefore. ovelruieG. AMI the defendants
given five days 10 answer.
SIKH District COurt-The Liability of a
Party Making a Contract by Telegram,
and signing the Name of Another Par
ty-A Mistrial-Soye, vs.. Loeb.
Wilkes & Hall vs.. Alexander Walker
This is the title OF suit now before the
Sixth District Court. involving the RESPONSE
bilitv of "a party who. II is alleged, made a
contract for another party by means of ii
telegram to which he signed the name OF the
other party.
The telegram was az order Tor q certain
Number Of field hands. to he delivered ut
kenner Station. by parties in Virginia. Ii
appears that, III obedience to the telegram.
the hands were sent forward. but that upon
arrival the contracting party declined To en-
gage them. The plaintiffs set up that ii the
defendant signed the telegram without au-
thority he is responsible. under the terms of
the contract. In this case some SllO0 are
involved.
A mistrial in the case of Lewis VS..
Pepin, for DANA yes alleged TO have arisen
because of ii lcaky root. jury OF the Sixth
District Court. eleven in NUM- Der. failed to
agree. This was the case in which the
Judge oyeTrllled the challenge to the jury
array made by counsel, and reported
by us.
James o Noyes vs.. Sigmund Loeb
Judge Cooley yesterday rendered an elabo-
rate opinion in the above suit before the
Sixth Judicial District Court. in which the
plaintiff sues to annul Judgment rendered
against him in this court for the sum of
$l79l O9. with interest, in favor of Sgmund
Loeb. The judgment was attacked because
it was obtained according to Moves ale
cations, by fraud and otlier i'll practices.
1t was alleged that the note sued upon,
on and for the amount of which the judy
ment was rendered. had been partially paid
by plaintiff herein, and that his liability for
the balance has been released by the payees
of the note, in consideration OF a certain
assignment of al his property to IA trustee,
made by said j. o. Noyes for the benefit of
his creditors.
The fraud and i'll practices complained of
consist Of this: That Sigmuud Loeb, the
party who obtained The Judgment sought to
be aunulied. was fully aware of the pay
ments and of the release sci up in the petit
ton for nullity. and t!lat he combined with
Simon Loeb q Co.. the original payces. to
detraud j. .. Moves by a fraudulent or
rather fictitious transfer to him Of the note:
and also. that LIE consp;rcd and combined
with Solomon Loeb, tie only witness sworn
on the trial of the case of Sigmund Loeb vs..
j. o. Moves. to detraud the present plaintiff.
Judgment in favor OF Loeb and against the
plaintiff, J. O. Moves.
Does an Act Of the Legislature go into
Effect from it. Passage or from the Dare
of PromulgntiOn:
Wakenpath and Joseph McCert Brothers
in this case. counsel for defendant moved
to set aside attachment Oh tie ground that
the attachment bond was not made payable
to the clerk of tin. court. as required by the
law of December 80. 1870.
The question in this case. and an i'm
portant one it would seem, is whether the
Legislature had the right to order that IA
law shall take effect from its passage and
not from the date OF its pronIul cation. Judge
Cooley has taken the matter under advise
nent. and promises a decision at an early
day.
supreme Court Decisions.
MONDAY March l3. ISL.
Stewart, Hyde & Co. vs.. Buard & Dram
guet.-Froln the opinion OF Justice howe
i'll this case we extract as follows: Appeal
from the district court. parish Of Natchi-
In, th1 a,l1- o. ~ !
PENDANTS entered into a contract with the
plaintiffs. which was atterward reduced to
writing and signed by defendants. by which
the plaintiffs as commission merchants and
factors were to furnish plantation supplies
to an amount not to exceed $1,000. and the
planting partners, agreed TO
ship 10 plaintiffs the entire crop of their
plantation. which, to quote from the
a gree lnent, the said Buard X Dranuuet
warrant to amount to four hundred bales
Of cotton. Of four hundred and fifty Pounds
t. the bale. and if the number falls short OF
that number the commission shall be paid
upon The deficiency at the rate of five dol
lars per bale liIuidated amount.
IL secure payment OF the advances in
tereSt and charges on the crop. the defend
ants furnished their joint notes for $4,000.
due December 81. lS67, and each pledged
ns collateral certain mortgage notes and
ptti- ~ I'lt'tdHtS stiSo ~ pay I'VE per
cent attorneys fees on any balance due and
sued Oh. The defendants having failed to
make = crop. suit was br0u9 ht against them
and Judgment obtained against Buarl at
The January term, 1863. OF the district
court. for the sum of 1000. The case was
Continued It's regarded Drannuc;. the other
defendant. and at the December term of the
court 1869, Judgment was rendered against
him. From that Judgment plaintiffs have
al rl nd * tny Il
Amendment decreeing the liability of the
il, the full amount asked for in
ia. petition
Tie defendant pleads the following:
/. He denies having entered into the con-
tract AT tie date stated. but AYERS that lie
signed the same, having been compelled to
do 50 from force OF circumstances: and that
the contract is usuriolls and an cXtortion.
=. He admits the Indebtedness for one-half
the supplies, but objects to the commission
on cotton not shipped as contrary to law.
3. He alleges error in the mortgage. which
he -s%S should have been but for $1,000
4. He pleads IN compensation the one
itali value OF four mules worth. as he alleges
Sin Hundred dollars. returned to plaintiffs,
and the sum Of enc hundred dollars for their
hire.
3. He pleads also in his amended answer.
that the rate Of interest should be only five
per cent. and reiterttcs the illeoalitv of tl,e
contract entered into 10 pay i've dollars per
bale as commission on cotton which they
guaranteed to slip.
/. The evidence shows that the contract
was voluntarily executed by the defeudan,
as well AS by Buard. The negotiations
commenced in New Orleans by conycrsa-
tions between the plaintiffs and B,lar,i. and
afterward with Dranquct. The written
agreement was atterward prepared and
sent up to the plantation. The defendant
lIl.fll.lt Il Ii lnttu, lLinc1;..1r Il.