New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-30

7':-s ca @7--.s..ss q s.
1 .:!s 3lsz u 5s IN
aeves:a1 n = y y y - iif5iI n
erae-i-isl r 1SalIs.l e "a
Rs;iresS ri 6iS15 ci31 ~ - ~ r. ~ b 4
49,! H@..r ss ~ 8 x nv lSs5t 57s xssIi
oss.s' ~ rs 1ssSse n - ssS
.c..s.,nSs r.esS s,sS 1t1ssiiS Vle1i1 ~
~ ~ ..stss xisss : S ~ ~
ssts.L-S-t ~ .ffcsss5 so7se s. eS'SS T. "
e,,rr;re "a tna - - 49, ~ q.
Ia-.a q not nniv uncom S6rfe6ie. Hnf 70
ssishle and kImost vsiuIeIses. be3Idss "a 4
s Sa.a. - S1 e. f.c,r ~ ,ss;.~
danger o. nao l e. =. ,.p:i;.t Il. sn5
Herbsrt Al. White md James p. wilkins,
engaged a. hsulers, ontered suit against
the firm Of Smith & Goldsmith. commac-
cial firm Of this city, to recover &lQ,QQ4
damages. ~ asa IS ssl;3S
They represented that il 6eptenqt ~,
thew entered into . written conf ut N6lf
the said firm, proprietors Of the Comm
Cotton Press, to do all thor oufhaulin& =
cotton from said press for tho year Co.
mencing September I, 1870, and ending
August 81, 1871, ut the rate of seventeoor
cents per bale. They claimed that to full
fill said contract they were obliged. to I'm
nish draught animals and vehicles ct great
expense, and proceeded faithfully - carry
out the terms Of their agreement.
They asserted that ON the twentyAinth ct
December, 1870. the said firm, witheut any,
previous warning, cause or pEOyocatieas
employed other parties to do their haulinGf
and informed plaintiffs that their services
would no longer be required; that By rid
| action Of defendants they we're deprived
of their business and left without employ.
ment for the many men, animals and yehi6l6e
which they had obtained and contracted
with to carry out their saidAgreement; that
| they were thus deprived OF large profits
which they could have made out Of the con-
tract, for which they prayed ITO recovers
$4,000. The jury brought in verdict Of
Fourth Justice Of the Peace
Theo. Dronet wa. 1Ionisiana State T.ot.
terv-lTheo. Dronet .fhe nlaintiff herein.
seeks 70 recover from, tie defendant first. =
ann of fourteen dollar. smount 81 a pris11
which he alleges to be entitled to as holdef
and owner of a lottery ticket or cerf;fl-
cassa Of the Inn;s;ana State I1tterv o..
U ranv '. class s No 40 Sec"nS' = f"rther ann
r. three dollars and thirty cents for coata Al
urotest = 80.
The defendant after DENYING nla;ntiAPs
| aljeoat;ons fled the followisr nersmntorv
excention: /. PLANTING demand sets fortk
no canse of action. the cerfifcate 81 la.
ferv ticket he;nv torn ana mutiiated B 3
Prescr;nt;on M demand for navment he.n~
made T;th;n three monthsr aecor;i;nS "a
contract. ssSf
The certificates of tha comm;ss;owSs~.
Messrs. II. peralta AM, Adam Sy;ffer shoy
that the drawing If ths. Inm;s!ana iof4erv'
class No. so. took place ON the f;fth Of xnrsI
1870. more than a wear before the institntiOn
If this sn;t: 81 s6ows also that M a.. M. a.
fcurteen dollars was awarded r. The f;cket
sned nnon. BEFORE examining the merit If
the exceptions fled l,v the fefendant.s the
court feels It it's duty not to let the e. enoe
pass over in silence. From the testimony
| :. .'~~ = -
sne6 on had heen sold nv the emploven -
AGENT of the comnanv "a Mr. NarcadsI. =
ceffeebousa keener at the CORNER 81 Rnr.
0undv and JJrsnIines streets. who. unon tha
PAYMENT of the nrize lfourteen dollarsl. -
TUNED the ticket. as usual. to the agent
from whom he had purchased it. ~
| A few davs after the ann owe or agent of
the comnanv. to whom the ticket ha6 been
retn~ned nv Marcadal loaf the sama IN
certain nreinises corner of Mandeville and
| Morea,i streets. After annlvinu In vain to
the nerson who had found said ticker. TIA
emnIove Of the comi,anv states that 4 cer.,s
tain person Whose name is given in his
called at l,is Office. corner Of JJrsnlinee and
Rnrcnndv. and demanded navment Of thas
| nr;ze Iinon I,o;ro told that ti,e ticket tina
presented had ,heen INST .fter navment of
the prize to M. Marcadai. who was the onlv
bona f;de holder Of the came at the time Of
| the naymQnf and Marca6al himaelf WhA
had hcen sent for. beinr shown the ticket
and declaring that II was his. and that IA
had received the prize. fourteen dollars.
that nerson had left at ti,e off;ca and never.
called there aoa;n. months later. N
other nerson Whose name IL also siyen Nv
the w!fnessl presented the same ticket "a
one g. Vess;er. another AGENT of the com
nanv, at his Office. corner eSsI,rsnl;nes and
Old ieyee street. 49,
On he;np Informed how and uni3er what
circumstancee that ticket had been loet.
that person left the office. but NOT without
threatening to sue the company. threat
which were not carried into execution nv
him. Matters stood thus. when, some three
months ago, or about, the plaintiff called
also at C. Vessien's office. and representing
himself as the owner of the ticket sued on,
demanded PAYMENT of the prize. paymeuf
which was emphatically refused to him.
Now comes the testimony of the plaintiff
himself He declares under oath that : few
months ago he bought the ticket sued %
for the sum of fourteen dollars. the exact
amount of the prize herein claimed from
a poor man. whose name he does not.
know. or he does not recollect. that L.
bought il because that moor man had IS
means to sue the company.
In the opinion of the court. the testimony
of the plaintiff gives strength to the eyidence.
already above NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. .verv NM
favorable, indeed, to his cause. If plaintiff.