New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-04
THE COURTS.
United States District COurt-In AdIni
rAItV.

10 De dlSJrlouted.
United states District Court-In Bank
ruptcy.
James Ryback has filed petition, pray
ing he be adjudged bankrupt; assets
$1,000.
Garrett. Craig &. Co. have brought pc
tition praying to be declared bankrupts
and file their schedule, showing assets to
the amount of $4S6, GOO, $l50,00O Of which
was stock in trade and liabilities, secured
and unsecured. amounting on rough esti
mate to $f25 900.
The unsecured claims of creditors against
the petitioners are: For merchandise
bought by petitioners as firm, cotton bal
ance due by them as firm, account balance
due. The tine when these debts were con-
tracted run as far back as 1868, and are
with planters, grocers, produce and dry
goods merchants, as well as all the other
classes of the mercantile community. The
residences Of the creditors are i'll Arkansas,
Mississippi, and in the Western States, be-
sides III Louisiana.
United states Circuit Court.
In the case Of A. c. Bailey, indicted in
February last, charged with forging money
order, it was yesterday decreed the surety,
A. j. Sypher, pay $1,000 to the United
States, the defendant failing to appear.
kennett 4 BellSare ruled into court to
show cause why the proceeds of sale of the
steamer Lotawanna should not be depos-
tied in court. The proceeds amount to
$645617
In tie libel agains. 7400 cigars and leaf
tobacco the same were condemned and the
bond forfeited.
The Jury rendered verdict of $1,000
against Z. G. Ryan for selling spirits with
out the proper stamps.
Fourth District Court.
70. In
snip of certain sugars and molasses. between
E. II. Breed ard G. Z. Carlin, Felix Berg
intervenpr. j udge Theard ordered:
That Felix Berg. intervenor, be decreed
the owner of the proceeds OF the sugar and
mulasses seQuestered in the hands of Robert
Hare. 1t is lurther ordered that Felix Berg
have Judgment against Henry H. Broad,
and his security on the bond OF sequestra-
ton, for $780, for his attorneys fees. and in
terest at five per cent per annum upon the
sum detained in the hands of Robert Hare
from the time that the proceeds were Sc
uuestered in his hands. 1t is also ordered
that plaintiff. Henry II. Broad have judg-
ment and recover from the defendant, &. L.
Carlin, the sum of SS3l. with interest at
eight per cent per annum from the thir-
teentn OF February. 1872.
Fifth District Court.
The rule taken by the defendant in the
case of Stackhouse against Zuntz, to test
the validity CT the appeal bond was up for
trial.
Out of panel of $50 persons, who
were TO appear before this court. only
twenty-five answered Wednesday morning
TO their names. Many excused themselves
on the most frivolous pretexts, others had
moved from their late residences, and 9th
ers could not tie found.
Sixth District Court.
'Ihe docket OF tie court is burdened with
the records OF suits against the city to re-
cover Licenses errOneouSly paid. Several OF
these cases have been decided against the
city. Were all settled and paid tie breach
would be wide.
seventh District Court.
S. j. Font VS.. Jose Domingo.-In this
case where plaintiff claimed $3.50. with
interest. for advances made defendant to
equip, etc. tie steam vessel Cornudella,
Judge Wharton Collens has rendered judg
ment in favor of defendant. on tue ground
that the original debt was that OF Ramon
Mir alone. and the defendant. neither in fact
nor in law. made himself liable. Besides.
the plea Of prescription set up by Domingo
must prevail. The Judge reached the fol
lowing conclusions touching the liability OF
the defendant. who was sued upon an al
legged promise 20 pay the draft:
The original deOt was that of Mir alone.
and was contracted without eXactiDg a
written obligation.
Il is true that on the same Gay, but after
the obligation had been incurred Mir gave
in payment (see petltlon) his draft on Ro-
ma gosa. Camilla Il Co, of Matamoras, in
favor of Font.
1t is clear that draft was not stipulated
when the obligation was contracted. 1t
was net required by the original contract.
so that wien Domingo allowed the amount
of the loan to be included in his advances,
lie did not, either N fact or i'll law, or IN
intention. make himself liable as the dravee
or inderser OF the draft. Nor was he at
fe ted by the note as an acknowledg gment
in writing of the debt as a debtor in sol;do
wcnld be: tor lie was not a debtor III solldo.
c. c. 20So [2O75l and 2oS3 2ON
Indeed, in having the sum included il
his advances in fitting out the vessel. etc.
with the consent Of Mir and without any
reference 70 Fon-, he became liable TO Ilr
and not TO Font. Nor does Font base bis
suit on the draft, but on a contract IN pGYs
depending on oral proof of an implied Id
bility to nay tie original del,t for which
the draft was coliarerally drawn by Mir,
etc, but not on any written promise TO lsav
the draft Itself. It being suit based on
the oral promise. it is affected by The pre-
scIipticn that runs against shat kind Of
premise or obligation
:. Ine including OF tae sum n me
amount acknowledged as advanced by Do
mingo 10 the partnership. can noC be coz
sidered as the ratification of the act oi an
agent.
5. Hence another insuperaole impe'!.-
| ment 10 plaintiffs action arises The
ground OF agency being removed. + ont
! could have no right OF action except on an
| assumption by Domingo of debt due by
| Mir to Font: but this, too, must fail, be-
cause there is 10 written evidence of such
| an assumption. See Acts of 1888, p. l43
The draft contains no such assumption.
| Domingo was not a. party TO it; did not
even know OF its existence. The contract
OF partnership in the vessel contains no
promise by Domingo to pay the amount IN
question to Font Reading the two docU-
! ments one could not discover any such Oh
| legation or promise. The tenor or purpOrt
| do not permit such a construction. 1t is
only by oral evidence that any connection
| between them, or anv liability for Mir s
borrowing from Font, is eked out. Now,
this IS precisely what the law prohibits.
| The promise 10 pay the debt ct another
must appear rom the writing itself. and
not by means OF oral evidence.
1t is clear that without the orai evidence
there would not be the shadow even OF
/ any promise of Domingo to pay the draft
drawn by MIR on Romagosa, Camilla Il
Co. or nythirg III the contract to be con
strued as an implied acknowledg ginent OF
Doming"s liability for the amount DOR.
rowed as alleged IN the petition. Fl.
Judgment for defendant.
| Benefit of .Hr. George Clarke.
| Tomorrow evening George Clarke takes