New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-05-03
THE COURTS.
United states District Court-In Admit
raIty,

United States District Court-In Admit
rally,
Time to advise was taken in the case of
A. Barker vs.. E. E. Norton, assignee.
Jones and Mccullough vs. steamer
Clarkesville. Discontinued on payment of
costs.
In the suit of j. b. Cooper and lothers
against the steamer Idah, the proceeds of
sale were distributed as follows: Wages,
John Is. Cooper. first engineer, $50 Sc; sec
ond engineer, $84 80; fireman, S22; deck
hands, $50 each; steward G. F. W illuughby,
SIl6 80; Peter Aubry, cook, $436 80; John
I'll. WillOughby, pilot, $l220; b. +. Hargess,
clerk, 1888 80; carpenter, $66; mate 1922
deck sweeper, $l6. Supplies paid private.
The whole amount amounted to $3.50 80.
United States District COurt-In Bank
rupIcy.
In the matter of John Kitterlin. Appli-
cant having complied with the intent of
the bankrupt act, is forever discharged
from all debts existing December 81, 1868.
United STATES Circuit Court.
+. K. Converse and five others have
brought bill in chancely against w. T.
BOardman and Charles BOardman for in
fringement of patent apparatus to hoist
steamboat staging, of which the plaintiffs
purchased from Blood, inventor, in interest
against the Mound City Mutual Life In
surance Company. of st. Louis, has been
transferred from the Sixth District Court.
J. NJ. Barclay VS.. Board of Levee Com
missioners. Defendants have leave to sub
NIT briefs.
United States VS.. McGary ct ais. Discon-
tinued by instructions from the Secretary
OF the Treasury,
Jacques Levy VS.. William Burton ct ais
no Il nd
John Nelson, in sOlidO, $500.
IL. L. Stone VS.. B. +. Taylor ct ASIDE
PENDANTS allowed until the first Monday in
June to file their defense,
Leverich & Co. VS.. John Nixon & Co.
Verdict for plaintiffs, who recover 5000 80,
BOgart Shall VS.. P. H. Foley and William
B. COnger, executors of William BOgart.
This is rule for a new trial
The defendants in their brief based their
ground for a new trial on the suppOsitiOn
that Wilhelmus BOgart had acted on behalf
of the minor, Shall, in the capacity of an
agent, or negOtiOTIInl geStOTiGUO; that hav-
ing rendered to the minor an account of his
administration as such, he was discharged
from all other and further liabilities toward
him.
They cited in support of this defense the
law governing the duties and responsible
ties of the negOtiOrttm geStOTi and several
The court said: These authorities are good
and sound for cases to which they may be
applied. In the present case, William
BOgart acted as an intermeddler, which
places him in a different light than negO-
tiOratml geStOri.
At the time of the death of Mrs. 2. Shall,
the grandmother and tutrix of the minor
Wilhelmus BOgart was the undeT-tutOr of
the minor and testamentary executor of the
deceased tutrix. In his capacity of under
tutor. instead of provoking family meet
ing for the purpose of providing the minor
with a tutor, he undertook to act for the
minor, not as an ordinary agent, but as
under tutor, assuming thereby the functions
of tutor.
He made himself liable toward the minor
of all the responsibilities attached to the
functions of tutor, without its privileges.
In that capacity he took upon himself to
invest the funds Of the minor in a manner
contrary to law. Instead of investing these
funds as provided by article BAL, e. C.,
by public act, secured by mortgage, he
took commercial paper, which might have
been good at the time when he received
them, but which were worthless, to his
knowledge, when he rendered his account
to the minor. The tutor must act in all
instances in conformity with the strict pro-
visions of the law; otherwise he will be
made responsible to the minor for the loss
occasiOned by the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
New trial refused.
Sayauth nisFrfCr Can't