New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-02-07
THE COURTS.

In the bankruptcy trial OF Runk u w Int,
Bernheimer and Others intervenOrs, against
Gretzner. Winehill & Co., it was admitted
that the firm who were sued had allowed
their commercial paper to go to protest,
and that it remained unpaid for fourteen
days, aud. besides, submitted themselves to
the Judgment OF the court. Therefore, it
was ordered that the firm of Gretzner,
Winehill Il Co., consisting of Max Gretz-
ner, Gustave Winehill und Morritz Gretz-
ner, became bankrupts, within the mean
ing of the act, before the filing of the petit
ton of intervention, and they are decreed
bankrupts accordingly; and they shall file,
within five days, a schedule of their credit
ors and inventory of their estate.
The old suit Of the United States against
George Jonas was partially tried yesterday
before jury, and continued until to-day.
The suit is based on the refusal of the de-
PENDANT to comply with the terms of a sale
made by taxJgovernment, by which the fol-
lov-'Izy:ts 81 fule of damages accrued:
.}y deficiency in price the second sale. $500 90
By cost etc. NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.. 1928 II
Total. $3.50 81
For the above amount the suit is brought
The case was once tried. but ended in
mistrial on the third of March, 1871, and is
now on again.
The jury in the case of the Bernhemer
Brothers against A. Levi, found for defend
ant. 1t is a suit for a promissOry note. The
defense is the prescription of five years.
Judge Theard yesterday morning deliv-
cred the following opinion, holding that
where there is no malice shown, the setting
aside of a writ of attachment will not give
a right to damages:
z. n. Rivera vs.. Lafitte, Dufilho g. Co.
This is snit for damages alleged to have
pct. tnnH nv,
of the issuance of an illega attachment,
said to have been wantonly and maliciously
levied by defendants on the property Of
plaintiff. The action is on the bond given
in the attachment suit, No. 22,00l of the
docket of this court. entitled Lafitte. Dutil-
ho & Co. vs. P. n. Rivera.
Defendants deny the allegations of plain
tiff disclaim the malicious and unwarranted
intent imputed to them, and assert they
were induced to resort to the conservatory
remedy used by them by the acts and say
ings of plaintiff himself.
Although the evidence was insufficient to
maintain the writ of attachment in the suit
aforesaid, No. 22,004. still l do not think
that the plaintiff should recover in this case.
Defendants have successfully repealed
the imputation of malice. They have
shown that in the exercise of the harsh
remedy to,which they resorted, they miti-
Sdttu IT'S III uTlouS tutCt W INC uliuUSl,
that they rendered the attachment as re-
stricted and limited as they could for the
protection of their rights.
Hence they have not made themselves
liable to vindictlve damages, which. if in
tlicted in such case, would deter all persons
from prosecuting their rights, and would
IUilfy the remedy granted to suitOrs by
law.
Nor can plaintiff recover the real dam
ages which he pretends to have suffered.
for it was his conduct which induced de
PENDANTS to sue out an attachment. Had he
not written the letter addressed to Maryland
freres and told defendants attorney that
he was ruined, and would not pay the
amount he owed defendants except upon
creditors. very likely defendants would
not have proceeded by attachment.
am induced to believe by the testimony.
to which he was subjected. and that de-
statements, that they could protect them
selves only i'll the manner in which they did
They had seen property of plaintiff offer
ed for sale his store was reported to have
been robbed; certainly these facts. coupled
he would 90 in bankruptcy; that he would
protect himself, place his property beyond
the reach of defendants, were sufficient to
arouse the suspicion of defendants and die
tate the conduct which they followed.
Plaintiff should not complain of wrongs
which he has provoked. For these reasons
let plaintiffs claims be rejected, with costs,
and let there be judgment for defendants.