New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-27
THE cot RT..
Tinted state. Circuit Court.

[ uifSG STATES NOurts
Tine 70 advise ws= taken Il the case Of
II Triccu against the steamer Irene.
judgment Of the District Cont n the
ease Of Frank Myers against the steamer
Lizzie HOPKINS was affirmed. and the
plaintiff RECEIVERS $50. with interest. from
the ovne-s Of the steamer and william
Moran. II solido. The s1it vas fo- injuries
rece;ved BIZ the plaintiff Eh.ls II tie en-
plov Of the boat.
Tie nandanus applied ~ Dv J. D. Cox
and others against tie steamer Lo-aF anna
vas refCsed.
5. A S.ockdale. collector. having seized
fc--v--L-ee barrel. u whisky Il the store OF
Kare-erdvk l. Co No. - Tchoupi-oulss
stree, containing 1917 proof gallons. on the
ground that the internal !-veuCe tax had
not ben paid upon The same. they were
ves-eldar Eoeled. one c011r being that Tie
bug Vs. branded proof u ninety degrees.
VIXEN The l!luO- Itself vas l5uerT-Eve AID
riue-7--ix degrees. beng registered less
than the inspection called :o-. Tie Usual
prr-ee@5 i prayed to-.
supreme Court
Tie following decisions -e-e rendered
Yesterday By Justice Hove:
Babccck Il ker-ochsn =. !. {. Wat
son-Apyeal from tie District Court parish
Of Tensas.-Tkis suit va. Instituted upon
prorri.sorv note given bv defendant =
-. -
ZION goods sold 70 hin by plaintiffs II l%l
Hi principal defense : T1a- these goods
were knowingly and C1.aT.1Iv furnished
10 Tim BIZ the plaintiffs :Or the equipment
Of a rebel battery. organized ~ the de-
tendau-. and known a. Na--gn's battery
IL Drief. ke aver. t1a- t1e plaintiffs we've
fo-c9uE ..lra-o-s with hin against re GOV
trruer- 0. tie United S-a-4s. and h IL
vokes thar c0-1-co1 rlrpltude = a defense.
The cause va= tried b. a ju-y. Who zen
dared verdict +Dr plaintiffs. and from IL
Judgment e---red thereon IL lsteIGac-
hs- appealed.
The iGrv, dr--t..es=. telieve1 that me DE-
iendsDt GI1 10 MAKE pl- Ii ca-@ VIII
that clea-ne== which such suspicious 5ort
Of defense relu-re. - Al =. 2. ana = {
are uo- r5-euareG 70 say they were MS
taken The defendant had tie BENEFIT q
hi. Own testimony before tie Ju-T = Al-e
the plaintiff. were represented only ~ Z
written deposition Of one 81 tLeu aLC IL
h4rius hi. testimony with IT. rather dam
aging admission that Il would not swear
that the account presented va the one on
which -he note was based. HE cOlfe--eS
thai TIE DOZEN linen cambTlc LaudEercLl+t=
and the dozen half cotton hose 50 forth IL
the account were probably not Tor the u4e
OF hi. cannon erz and L i likely The same
nav BE- said OF SIX pieces Of
brown cotton also mentioned II the
bill. He falls 70 account for tie
fac thai about half the goods were pGr-
chased bv him il January and teprlary'
lsfl. TWO months before tie war began.
while hi. battery was not organized until
nearly four months after The war broke
out. or il August. lS6l. He tails entirely
10 show any knowledge On tie part Of the
plaintiffs Of The destination Of The goods.
He say: Il represented 70 Ar DeerT. their
CLERK who conferred with The members Of
-ie -i-r7 |--L0 7 do, = I
that the articles purchased. a. enumerated,
were iOr army Use. and the house. therefore.
made a reduction IN the price. When /
gave -he note I stated 70 tie party 20 whom
] gave Il. that the goods purchased lad been
for army Use, and that lie ought 70 make a
reduction II tle price.
Il this testimony refers Z the frs instance
to the time the goods were purchased il i
contradicted by testiuouT on behalf Of
plaintiff. which shows thar The goods were
charged al full p,ice. and ~ testimony for
defendant. " hich shows that they were pur-
chased. not By defendant personally. but.
in his absence from New Orleans, bv his
factor. now deceased. az The request Of liz
si.ter-ir-law. VINO had 0 personal interview
WITH either Dee-v or plaintiffs about them.
and states that SIZE can not say plaintiffs
were aware ftbeir destination. And. turth-
eru0re. if the plaintiffs made tal9 reduction
in 1861. wLen the goods were purchased.
wiz GlA t--E GtIelhdLt. - IN ~ gave lLt
note in 1861. ask for a reduction tor the
same reason! But if the testimony above
quoted refers throughout. a. seems most
natural. 70 what took place IL loo. when II
Seems a reduction was made b throw lng
OF some arrears Of interest. i can 1o'
prejudice the plaintiff rE-L-. growing oQ'
81 4 sale in lScl.
The testimony tDE via-H-II goes 20 Gl-
Try-t any knowledge vi Tie destination Of
TIE goods and this seems credible enough
Why -LgGlG Grv goods Merchants. supply
Ing plantation goods . re factor OF a
planter. suspect that be WAS about 20 oea'
h. pIow-hare INTO a s"C-d. and use sucf
innocent and ouc9.c materials az stripes.
'jeau- and "lin-eys = cup a company
Of artilleIyuen !
Judgment affirmed.
second Di-trict Court.
II a case VI opposition arising II the SIC
ces.iOn Of John Holmes. judge DuyigueauC
ruled that one crtdicaJ.e wines. : sui.
Gent 70 establish any fac.
Bv the viii Of Louis Cs----a. Lls widow
receives AL the property allowed 20 h.
bv law. the remainder = " divided anon:
the children.
Fourth District Court.
In the case Of the city Of New Orlean
against Lucien Adams and others, judy
1neut was rendered for plaintiff.
On the twentieth Of December, 1917, IL
late City Of jefferson, by notarial act
leased u the Stock Landing Company, CON
posed OF the defendants herein. the pflylIeg
Of collecting the revenues OF the Stool
Landing wharf, in Jefferson City, for tn
price and sum OF Sl2.l91. represented b,
twelve prOmissory notes Of si0t5 50 each
drawn and subscribed by the members 0
said company. and payable 20 the City 0
Jefferson at the respective dates mentioned
on their face.
All Of the notes were paid with the ex