New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-11

- - 1fnin - r. S--,ss.xexu|
fSxS66S, a EIS 6eStiso g maritime law,
Announces tho came doctrine. "Although
Is l6sqfers a. not iAspre the sbipowners
against negligence ON the part q master .
arc liable for damage caused by peril Of
the -, though that peril be put into opera
tion9y the negligence of those In charge OF
'af s sss; Maritime Esw, 2c4, Is; sCush-'
ings Rep, All; IL Peters Rep, 2l3; 3 Pc
ters', 20; 10 Peters, 5H:
The authorities invoked by the defendant
do not apply to the facts Of the case. They
are generally cases in which the 4nesticn
was, whether the shipOwner was liable In
damages in cases of collision, or as COM
mon carrier, when he had employed regu-
larly licensed pilot, and the damage or loss
claimed was the result Of the miscOnduct OF
the pilot, The question presented BY the
present case is quite different. See Parsons
ON Maritime Law, volume 2, page ~.
The act Of 1855 does not help the defense
Interpreted as the defendants wish, it would
have the effect of violating or impairing the
rights of the plaintiffs in the contract they
entered into with the insurance company.
1 do not consider the punishment OF the
guilty. parties, rs required in that statute, 70
be inconsistent or incompatible with the
RECOVERY by the plaintiffs on the contract
entered into between them and the defend
ants.
It is proven that the advances made BY
the plaintiffs amount to &53ll O3, with in
terest at eight per cent from July %, 1870,
ON 42Sll 03; from September 9, 1870, on
1890: and from October 10. 1870, ON $3.50.
The plaintiffs in their own right must
recover Judgment against the defendants
for that amount and interest, and for the
balance Of the ten thousand dollars as
agents for the owner Of the boat, Noah
Scoyell, and Judgment will be entered up
accordingly.
United states District Court In Ad-
niralty, Hsn. 4. H. Darrell. Presiding.
Two cases came up yesterday before
the United States District Court, sitting In
admiralty, which are of some public i'm
p0rtance, ON account Of the decision of the
court in relation to the right Of trial by
Jury in admiralty cases. In one OF these
suits, Mamie May va, George Crooks,
captain of the steamer Ozark, the plaintiff
sued for damages on account OF having
been put on shore, near the mouth of the
Tensas river, the plaintiff being at the time
chambermaid of tho boat, and the i'll
being caused by difficulty with the wife Of
tlfe captain. The counsel for the defense,
HOrnor & Benedict, claimed . trial by jury.
This was resisted by the counsel for the
plaintiff, Judge r. Fl. Shannon, who adj
duced the decisions Of the Supreme Court
of the United States in relation to the act
of Congress of 1889, and the Interpretation,
by that tribunal, Of the national cOnstitu-
ton. The defense claimed that the act Of
l645 and the decision in the case of the
steamer Fitzhugh, rendered by Chief JUS
tice fancy, supported the claim.
The case having been several days under
advisement, Yesterday Judge Durell rem
dered an elaborate decision, overriding the
claim Of the defense for q trial, holding
that right of trial by jury did not exist in
any admiralty case.
In the case of John Lewis, one of the
hands ON board the Belle Lee, vd Jacob
violent assault and battery, the same decis-
ion was rendered upon the claim by the
counsel for the defense, Colonel A. p. Field,
for jury trial, the plaintiff being represented
by Judge Shannon. ,-..,
United states Circuit Court, He's. e. H.
Darrell. District Judge, Presiding.
In the case of the United States vs.. X. w.
TaliaferrO ct AL the exceptions were over
ruled.
In the case of the United States VS.. MINI
rod johnson ct al, the case was ordered to
be reinstated and reargued.
In the case OF Martin Cobb & Co. vs. 7.
S. Coons, and Martin Cobb & Co. VS.. S. An
derson, the plaintiff had leave to amend
the petition.
In the case of Adam Daniel VS.. Ed. Lock
EFT ct al. Judgment with costs was rendered
in favor Ut defendants.
In the case Of the United States VS..
George Jonas, it was ordered that the cause
he reinstated, and that argument be had on
the question whether the approval Of the
sale by the surety is not q imminent Of
~:H So Ind; Ia ss< no
A ,solle proscqWi was entered by the United
States District Attorney in the case Of the
United States Vs. Andrew Meuer.
The Grand Jury for the November term
was dismissed The Grand Jurors for the
April term will be impaneled in fort
nights time. T
Supreme Court Decisions.
.s, MONDAY, April II, 1871.
Desire Sompayrac, wife Of A. Lecomte,
vs. succession Of E. L. Hymans-Appeal
from the District Court, parish Of Natchi-
toches. Appeal dismissed. Ludeling, C. j.
Succession Of Peter A. Kugler-Appeal
from the parish court Of East Baton
Rouge. Judgment affirmed, except SO far
claim of H.:V. Barber. Labelling, G.. j.
Joseph H. Balch VS.. Ann Young, widow
and tutrix-Appeal from Iberville. Judg-
ment reversed. Ludeling, C.. ].
State of Louisiana VS.. Southern Bank
Appeal from Third District Court, parish of
Orleans This is q suit to compel the bank
to pay license of $1,000 for the privilege of
banking in 1870. Judgment reversed and
plaintiff g demand rejected Ludeling, C. j.
vs. E. w. Burbank-Appealf from the Fourth
District Court, parish OF Orleans. Motion
to dismiss appeal. Case continued. ITALIA
ferrO, j.
T. G.. Barriere & Co. VS.. Widow Mathilde
Fortier-Appeal from the Seventh District
Court. parish of Orleans. Judgment rem
dered in favor of defendant, as in nOnsuit.
Taliaferro, J.
Charles Case, receiver Of the First
Taylor-Appeal from the Fifth District
Court for the parish Of Orleans. Judgment
affirmed Justice WHY; Justice Howe re-
cused; Justice TaliaferrO dissenting.
E. H. Satterfield vs.. T. j. Spurlock, Spur
lock vs. Satterield. and Satter6eld.vs. Spur
lock, onsolidated-Appeal from the Seventh
District Court tor the parish Of Avoyelles.
Ordered that the mortgage made by Spur
lock to Satterfeld be recognized as execu-
Mr.. and Mrs. Butler ct al vs.. Fritz Hup-
penbauer-Appeal from the Fifth District
Court for the parish Of Orleans. Judgment
reversed. WHY'D. .0!a slif - .-ls .s-',..
Geddes, Shakespeare & Co. We. E. M.
Ivens g. Co-Appeal from the Seventh Dis
trict Court, parish of Orleans. Judgment
affirmed: Wyly;J.
Samuel L. James vs.. Pike, Lapeyre g.
Brother-Appeal from the Fourth District
Court, parish of Orleans. Judgment at
frmed. Wyly,J j. .a.r
State of Louisiana Vi. Peter Cook-Ap-
peal from the district court, parish of Iber-
Vile. Judgment affirmed. WHY, J.