New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-05-05
THE COuRTS.
United States District COurt-In Admit
Fnlfy.

United States District COurt-In Admit
rally.
Parties interested in TIE cause of the Mer-
chants Mutual Insurance Company against
steamer Sabine ct ais. are to show cause on
the ninth instant why the report of the
commissioner should not be hOmolOgated.
The motion to rescind the order in the
case Of A. Miltenberger and E. E. Norton
against w. n. Mercer will be argued on
Monday, This is the suit where it is sought
to make the defendant responsible in the
sum Of 100000 for his conduct as a di-
rector in the Bank of Louisiana.
In the case of George c. Love VS.. GER
tain fatbOat and -, 900 slaves, it is ordered
Bobet Brothers, stave dealers, show cause
on the seventh instant why the PROPERTY
should not be restored to the plaintiffs.
J. r. BARRYMORE vs. steamer PiOneer--Ex-
ception OveTruled.
James NJ. Carron ct ais and G. II. Brown
VS.. steamer Cherokee. Cases consolidated.
United States District COurt-In Bank
,rupfcy.
In the matter OF J. Browne The injunc-
ton dissolved. NortOns 1.-THE custOdian)
petition dismissed, and Nash & Hodgson,
auctiOneers, allowed to proceed with the
sale.
In the matter of Frederick Seip. Appli-
cant forever discharged from all liabilities
in existence on the date of filing his petit
ton, having complied with the require
ments of the law.
Alexander GrOuchy VS.. Felix Heer De-
PENDANT ordered to comply with the order
of court directing him to file his schedule or
else show cause why he should not be in
limbo for contempt.
In the matter of Mrs. J. G. Robinson.
The facts in the petition being true, it is adj
iudged Mrs. Robinson became bankrupt be-
tore the fling of the petition, whereupOn
the bankrupt is ordered to ale the schedule
within the usual delay.
All Oppositions filed to the discharge of
the following named bankrupts are, in CON
formity to the rule established on the
twelfth of April, 1872, dismissed In the
matter of NJ. L. Crawford H. Libermann,
r. D. White, Isaac n Collins, John A.
Smith, Julius S, Becker, NJ. j. Hauck, Har
vey NJ. Mason Il Co., Henry Shorten, L. A.
Fourier, j. q. FELTON,. W. F. White, II. 7.
Earle.
Excnecs from Juries.
The federal courts in this city have to
UNDERGO tae usual amount of trouble before
a jury San 5e impaneled.
In one gf these examples wOe-1egone
subject for the marshaPs book appeared,
and reiterated he could not serve.
"What excuse ~ asked the judge,
modify.
MAY it please your honor, I've got the
itch"
Scratch him off, Mr.. Marshal" thun-
dered the judge.
In another case Of the kind juryman
said he was deaf.
Cant you hear enough for juryman q
said the Judge.
He could not
''Step aside few moments"
The iuryman moved of a distance of sew
eral yards, when the judge, in q voice mild
as a sucking dove, said:
care you a married man -
The juryman, put off his guard, Obsequi- |
Ously answered lie was.
Swear him in, Mr.. Marshal"
In still another example the iuryman was /
willing to serve, but said, in a deprecating |
tone, as if he would not have it 50 if he |
could help it, "YOur Honor, | can't speak
word of English urging this through an
interpreter.
"Don't understand 2 T0rd ?"
"NOt q word.
"You're Just the veIy .D we want"
These excuses have u tendency to setintO
a stream, and on every occasion nearly the
same series of excuses, including the fact
that from juryman, he has just recovered
from smallpox, and other reasons why not,
but the above are out Of the ordinary run.
Seventh District COurt-COmDensatiOm
Widow and heirs of p. C. Lemane VS..
Henry Lemane, on opposition of lgnace/
HelOn.-The opponent, Ignaee HelOn, "a
transteree of the Judgment rendered oy
the Second District Courtin favor Of henry
Lemane, Tor $500, which he had placed as
deposit in the hands of p G. LemaHe.
The plaintiffs have per contr&, a judg-
ment against Henry Ltmane/ amount OF
an ordinary debt. They c01tend that as
creditors of this Judgment they could law
fully, and did, in fact, seize and fill the
Judgment rendered laZ above mcntiOnedl
NV ,-s
sanctioned. they Ghcr the Judgment they
obtained against Henry Lemane in compen-
satiOn of the judgment he obtained against
them. 4
Even were the two judgments Of the same
dignity. neither could he executed by the
seizure and sale of the other, for If the right
existed, both would have it at the same
instant and the absurd consequence of
cross seizure Of the very right sought to be
exercised bv one against the other might be
prpvented. Each party would be selzing
Judgment against itself.
IL is evident that this would be prac-
tical Inconsistency contradiction or
simultaneous destruction Of the professions
of each and both. The principle OF com
,,ensation or set of is tue only one truly
applicable; the two Judgments would eN-
tinguish each other.
PM tbe fact that Henry Lemane's Judg-
mont IA the recovery Of a deposit is a con
elusive answer, not only to the attempted
seizure but to the plea in compensation
Tie law prohibited a depositaIy from With.
holding the thing deposited on pretense OF
debt due him from the deposition (C. Z.
1927, and refuses him the plea Of compen
sation or offset when sued for the resttu-
ton Of the deposit G. G. 22O|.
1t would be not only curious, but absurd,
II, in a rendition Of a Judgment condemn
ing the depositary, the law would allow
him then to oppose to the Judgment the
very plea it refuses tQpermtt nm to oppose
to the demand itself, TINS relieving and