New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-23
THE WEEKLY REPUBLICAN
Terms of Subscription.
Ono year, IS; six months, So 50.
Advertisements.
THE COURTS,
Decisions of the Supreme Court.

tual Insurance Company.
Jean Baptiste Navarre-his succession.
State VS.. Jules Dubois, John Combray e
ais. Appeal taken by Prosper Canonge.
Solyant.
State on the relation of William Hawks
worth against the Crescent City Gasligh
Company.
La Societe de Renaissance des Arts e
Meters against William R. Morris g. Co.
James NJ Harding VS.. John c. Barell
and Alfred Kearny.
Blessey against Ed. Kearney and others
Consolidated cases.
Joseph Brown VS.. Christopher Mier.
Byrne, Vance & Co. VS.. William Mithoh
ct ais.
Blaize Getzler vs. B. w. Huntington.
John 7. Norris VS.. j. X. Collins, executor
ID. w. MrCranie VS.. NJ. n. Wood.
Eliza Dolson VS.. John Slattery.
Richard I. Venson VS.. Numa Wives.
Fritz Huppenbauer VS.. Louis Darlin ct
ais. ..-
Stephen K. Fowler VS.. successor of j. G..
Gordon.
JIM. Wells VS.. O. K. Hawley.
Pike, Lapeyre'& Co. VS. J. NJ. Day.
E. P. Henderson VS.. William c. James
Nd. veazie VS.. Mary Ann Stokes.
ID. NJ. Nuzum VS.. Elijah Gore.
aa JUDGMENTS REVERSED.
M. B. Irwin VS.. Levy and Dieter. Suit
dismissed.
NJ. A. Southworth VS.. City of New Or
leans. By Ludeling, c. j.: ''The evidence
shows that 2577 abstracts of inventories of
the property of minors were taken, and we
think, under the law, the plaintiff is entitled
to charge $3.50. Therefore, the Judgment of
the lower court is set aside" Wyly, j.,
dissenting.
c. E. Girardy & Co. VS.. H. L. Stern
Rendered in favor of plaintiff.
Judgment annalled as to appellant in case
of James l.. Lobdell VS.. William II. Bush
nell. Plaintiffs demand rejected.
Defendants in the suit of Victor Maigreau
and +. Laborde against New Orleans, Jack
son and Great Northern Railroad, ordered
to deliver the four barrels of whisky shown
to have been missing through their fault or
pay the plaintiff the value.
Charlotte f. L. Stafford VS.. James NJ.
Stafford. Judgment rendered in favor of
defendant.
Mississippi Valley Transportation Com
pany against H. C. Mammoth, Governor
Rule discharged.
In application of j. J. Taylor and P. A.
I. Duncanson, of succession of Milton Tay-
lor To be recognized as heirs.
John A. Sigur. tutor, against Florence A.
Ventress ct ais.
John Marks & Co. against S. Hermann.
Succession of E. Cordeville. Cause re-
manded.
Thomas B. French vs. Amos B. Thompson
ct ais. Injunction dissolved, and defendant
RECEIVERS on bond $500 damages.
A. Rochereau & Co., agents, VS.. Marcel
Guedry. Attachment dissolved.
Louis Cavalier VS.. Police Jury right bank
of Jefferson.
Desire Hickman VS.. A. B. Thompson.
Mary Ann Wells and husband VS.. Citi-
zens' Bank. Verdict set aside.
In the matter of James n Browns estate, |
injunction dissolved and suit dismissed.
Thomas Mcknight vs. CITY of New Or.
leans-famous water sprinkling case. Judge |
WHY dissenting.
MANDAMUs GRANTED.
State on the relation of Ed. j. Cav e. Co..
against the Judge of the Fourth District |
Court.
On the Judge of the Sixth District Court. |
applied for by the city, defendant in the |
case Of r. S. Morse suing to recover the |
value of a license paid into the citv treas su
ury wherein the judge and jury found for |
the plaintiff but refused appeal.
TO DISMISS APPEAL REFUSED.
L. Moussier ct ais VS.. F. w. Gastner.
MANDAMUs DIsALLOwED.
State on the relation of Dezutter VS.. the
Judge OF the Fifth District Court.
State on the relation of +. A. Luling
against Judge of the District Court of St.
Charles.
REHEARING GRANTED.
= Daniel S. Venson VS.. succession of j. b.
Tompkins.
PROHIBITION PERPETUAL.
Thomas Lynne VS.. Judge of the Seventh
District Court
Second District Court.
Mrs. Catherine Munich VS.. her husband,
A. Zihmermann.-1nsthisc case Judge Duvig-
neaud decides: Plaintiff in this cases al
Ieges that her husband is intemperate in his |
habits and brutal in his conduct toward her,
and that their living further together is in
supportable. The testimony shows that de-
fendant is very Incorporate in his habits,
and II there was no other testimony than
my own eyesight would be satisfied of
that fact, for have seen him attending the |
trial OF this case, and every time that he
has been here he was drunk-so drunk on
the trial of the rule that he could not testify
IN his own favor nor recollect any thing at ALL
The testimony shows that sometimes
when he has a drunken fit he takes another !
kind of ft-that is, jealous fit, and i'm
agnes everyone is running after his wife,
and instead of protecting his household
from the intrusion Of strangers, he beats
his WIFE,
The defendant introduced the testimony
OF parties who never saw him drunk or |
peat his wife. That may be true; these may
n n never seen him do SO, but it does not
IoiIow mat because these witnesses have
Hol seen IL That he does not do it, 1t only
pror 1n .nat these witnesses have not seen
II. Inc evidence is, think, sufficient to
]ustIy Judgment for the plaintiff.
GaIiup vs.. " aters-Plaintiff sued to an 4
null the sale OF horse and to get back the Q
money he paid for it, on the ground Of Ger 4