New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-06
ale,r Orleans Republican.
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF NEW ORLEANS
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court-Habeas Corpus in
the Case of a Husband Sent TO Jail for
Refusinc To PnY AIimOny.

Refusing to Pay Alim0ny. r-
F.M. Fisk, who was day before yesterday
sent to prison by Judge Cooley, of the Sixth
District Court, because OF his refusal to pay
the alimony awarded to his wife, from whom
he is suing for divorce, sued out writ OF
habeas corpus, yesterday, before Judge
Dibble.
Relator sets up that in compliance with
the order of the court ordering him to pay
$500, he yesterday appeared IN open court
and presented by his counsel his affidavit
setting forth his inability to comply with
said order on account of his embarrassed
and failing circumstances and purging him
self of all intention to commit any con.
tempt of court by his inability to comply
with said order. He contends that the said
order for the payment of aliInony is simply
an order for the payment of money, and
that Imprisonment for debt being abolished
in this State, his imprisonment for contempt
in refusing to obey said order is without au
thority of law, and is unconstitutional, IL
legal, null and void. Wherefore he prays
that writ of habeas corpus be issued III
his behalf, etc.
The Sheriff produced the body of Mr. Fisk
in court at ten O'clock After an argument
by counsel, in which he endeavored TO show
that the Judge of the Sixth District Court
had exceeded his authority, and that, If any
.contempt had been committed, the accused,
Judge Dibbie decided that he could not in
terfere with Judge Cooleys order, and the
prisoner was remanded to jail.
The slaughterhouse Issues.
The suits of Mehle 81 Co. and the State of
Louisiana VS.. the Slaughterhouse Company,
have been submitted to Judge Dibble, of the
Eighth District Court, before whom the ar
gument was made.
Damage Suit Against a City Railroad
Compnny-S4OO Claimed for an As
sault by a Driver.
Abram Anderson has brought suit in the
Eighth District Court against the Car
rollton Railroad Company to recover
$500 in damages He alleges that ON the
thirtieth day of April, in company with his
wife and two other ladies, he was on st.
Charles street for the purpose of taking a
car belonging to said company to go to Car
roilton; that after hailing said car he sprang
into it and rang the signal stopping bell,
but that the driver disregarded said signal
and kept on tor several squares, with petit
toners wife and the rest of the party run
ming after the car, expecting it to stop, but
the driver failed to stop until the petitioner
had given the signal by ringing the bell sew
eral times. That when said driver did stop
he insulted and abused petitioner in
shameful manner, and with a whip or club
= struck petitioner on the head, assaulted and
beat him in such manner as to endanger
his life. That the said driver is the agent
of the company and clearly responsible for
the acts of the driver. and that he has suf-
'tered to the extent of $500.
Seventh District COurt-Interesting De-
cision in n Cotton Case.
Judge Collens of this court yesterday rem
'dered the following opinion in the suit OF
A. Carriere ct al VS.. Packard g. Steele:
The petitioners liquidators of the firm of
Edward Dupasseur, formerly merchant in
New Orleans, represent that defendants are
indebted to them, in sOlido, in the sum of
$51 ,058 81 for losses sustained by defendants
on cotton purchased in December, 1865, by
said Dupasseur, and by them shipped for
the accounts of defendants for sale at
Havre, France. Judge Collens, in his de-
cision, says:
A factor may buy and sell, sue and be
sued, collect money, receive payments, give
receipts, etc., in his own name. Parsons
on Contracts, p. 9S.) The custom of factors
been declared so often jndicially that
it must be regarded as known to the law.
1t is also settled law and necessary con-
sequence of the proceeding, rule and Gus
tom that when a factor does act in his own
name he is personally bound. &c. G. 1881
and 1882 So. also, when he acts in the
name of the factorage firm to which he be-
&c. c. 1869, 2790, 279l, 2S39, 2S4l.)
The question remains, however, whether
Pinckard bought and consigned the cotton
mentioned herein in his own name alone or
in the name of the firm. On this question
of fact the testimony of plaintiffs principal
witness must be discarded. 1t will not
bear criticism.
In the rest of the evidence there is
nothing to sustain the allegation that
Pinckard used the firm name in purchasing
and consigning the two last invoices, except |
the proof made through Steele himself, of |
Pinckard's admission to him that such was
the fact. This would be sufficient if it were |
not liable TO suspicion.
The total absence in the books of Pinck- |
ard & Steele of all the proper entries of |
such a transaction, the receipt taken in |
Pinckard's sole name for the cash he used |
to make the marginal payment on the
speculation, the debit of this cash to his |
private account, and the fact that he had |
made large speculations with plaintiffs on
his individual account, and the late date of
the admission relied on, give rise to doubts
of the sincerity of the admission.
1t was made long after it had been ascer-
tanned that the speculation had resulted in
a heavy loss, and it had become Pinckard's
interest to make his partner share that loss.
He had previously concealed the purchase |
and shipment, so that, had it resulted favor
ably, he might have kept all the profits to
himself. The admission Is not, therefore, of
sufficient weight to be binding on Steele
The brokers who negotiated the purchase
should have been brought forward to state
who We're the parties they acted for as pur-
chasers, whether Pinckard alone or his firm
There were three previous shipments, un-
questionably for the account of the firm;
but the presumption that the others were
also for the firm is destroyed by the fact
that at the same time Pinckard was making
several large shipments, through the same
parties, for himself separately Hence di
rect evidence of the fact, whether it was for
this or that amount, becomes necessary in
each instance.
Steele, in his testimony, admits his liza
bility for the loss in the first three invoices.
1t is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and de-
creed that plaintiffs have judgment against
Claiborne Steele for $8975 49, with legal in
terest and costs of suit, and that the de-
mand herein for the price of $500 and l9l
bales of cotton consigned to K. Dupasseur
IL Co., Havre, be dismissed as in case of
nonsuit.
United States Circuit Court-Hon. Z. III.
Dureli, District Judge, Presiding.
In this court yesterday, Judge Durell
presiding, Robert J. Caldwell having taken
the oath OF office required by law, was
as duly qualified United States
Commissioner for this district.
In the case of the United States VS.. John
Brown, mate of the ship Northampton,
charged with beating and wounding
Charles johnson, one of the crew, United
States District Attorney Beckwith moved
that warrants be issued for the arrest and
detention unless they enter with recogni-
zances) of G.. Williams, Jane Alison and
mat oil wifi i'm tba |