New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-12-06
THE COERTS.
United states Commissioner Shannon


following facts: That in the town OF Vernon
the defendant caused ballots to be changed
that had been deposited and fraudulenIly
returned the same after alteration. Bonds
$4,000 Examination waived.
The same affiant charges the same de
fendant with interfering with him at the
election and refusing to permit him to scru
tinize the ballots.
Supreme Court.
present-John T. Ludeling, Chief Jus
tice; James G. Taliaferro Rufus K. Howell
and John H. Kennard, associate Justices.
Ab5ent-W. G. Wyly, associate justice.
The following cases were taken under adj
vi3ement: j. A. EscOtt ct ais. ys. city OF
New Orleans; State of Louisiana ex rel. A.
A. Plattsmeier vs. j. o. Landry, Controller,
and William S. Mount, Treasurer; State OF
Louisiana ex rel g. W. Sadler VS.. j. U.
Landry ct ais; j. D. Leary VS.. Martin
Cobb & Co.
In the case of the State of Louisiana, ex
rel George E. Bovee VS.. +. j. Heron, the
clerk Of the Supreme Court has certified
that in the same it is agreed between the
parties interested the six days allowed By
law for an application for rehearing be dis
pensed with, and that the Judgment therein
rendered by the Supreme Court be made
eXecutOrY at once.
The court issued the following order yes
terday morning:
On motion Of John Ray, Esq, of cOun-
sci tor relator, and upon filing the written
agreement Of the parties TO this suit, Walv-
ing the time required by law for an applica-
tI0n for a rehearing in this case, it is or
dered by the court that the clerk of the
Supreme Court of the State do issue to the
relat0r a copy Of the mandate Of the Su-
preme Court in this case
Upon the issuance Of the above, Mr.. Ray
obtained from Mr.. Julian, deputy clerk OF
the court, copy Of the mandate and writ
ten agreement Of respondent waving the
delay.
The SUGGESTIONS of Martin Schumacher
and Lucille EIvant, widow of Louis Listan
have been opened in this court.
Fourth District Court.
Although Mr.. J. NJ. Bonner has received
his commission to fill the vacancy on this
bench, created by the resignation of Judge
Theard, he has not yet taken his seat, and
hence the court has done no business since
Saturday last
1t is stated that Judge Bonner prefers tc
not take the bench until duly commissioned
as the newly elected judge Of the court.
Fifth District Court.
in the case of David Perkins vs.. James
Grammar, plaintiff sued defendant for dam
IL
discovered Perkins in his bedroom, one
night, after having broken into his house
aud that he was in the act Of searching his
drawers when he discovered him; that he
said to him, you id thief, stop or I'll
blow the top of your head off,
Perkins jumped through an open window
into the street, when Grammar pursued him
for distance of several squares, and when
arrived opposite the point where he lived
- 7 l., i
Deared through broken part of the fence
Granner did not have Perkins arrested
for this. but spoke of it, and for thus speak
ing, the action for SANDER was brought.
The facts as narrated above, were sworn
to by the defendant on the trial of the case.
After revie wing the evidence, Judge Gull
iom said: One or two points, however,
seem to be established with plausible GER
taintv. One is that the defendant used
language similar to if not entirely identical
with that charged at the time alleged;
another is that the plaintiff was detected ia
defendants house, as set up in the answer.
1t is useless to go into an analysis of the
evidence concerning the pursuit of the
burglar. which states positively that there
was light in the house at the time of
entrance, and that, being very near him, he
recognized Perkins.
1t is true the plaintiff swears positively
TO the talsity Of this statement Respect
ing this particular fact in the testimony,
there is one circumstance which decides the
opinion of the court to accept the testimony
Of the defendant. Il is that had the state
ment been false, nothing could have been
easier than to have established an abb
This was not DONE nor attempted to be
done. Our law rays Statutes, FOG, sec
lions 81, 40 and AL declares that when
ever any civil suit for Islander. defamation
or libel shall be instituted in any court OF
this State, it shall be lawful for the defend
ant to plead in justification the untruth Of
the slanGerous, detamatory or lihelou+
words or matter for the altering OF publish.
ing Of which he may be sued, and in the
trial Of issue Of such suit, to maintain and
prove his plea by all legal evidence"
The theory Of this law is, that all persons
shall endeavor to command respect by the
morality Of their daily walk and CONVERSE
ton, SO that when yituperous SANDER" is
uttered, the object of it may como into
court with clean hands and invoke the pro
lection of the law as a worthy citizen.
The character of the plaintiff in this suit
has not been shown to be such as to con
vince the court that under the circumstances
he is entitled to any relief for damages done
him in the premises bF-the defendant.
The court, therefore, orders that there be
Judgment for the defendant
Sixth District Court.
Henry n. Seibrecht has filed petition in
this court, representing that he has for a
number of years transacted a general fur
niture and upholstery business in this city;
that in consequence of the falling off OF
trade he finds himself unable to satisfy his
debts at the moment, he desires, therefore.
to avail himself of the benefit of the laws of
the State, which allow to debtors a respite.
He amends to his portion schedule of his