New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-03
THE COURTS.
United States Circuit Court.

Co. against Charles Viol was rendered in
favor of plaintiff for $5i7 l3.
United states District Court-In Bank
ruptcy.
All accounts in the matter of Philip B.
Brown and MS personal property, D.. I.
Russell. Logan, Soniat & Claiborne, and
Pierre D. Poutz, were approved, and the
assignee discharged.
Robert Il. Harvey, of Harvey, McMahon
& Co., James d. Blair and Samuel H.. Buck,
of Blair s. Buck, were discharged OF all
debts by decree of court, which existed on
the twenty-third of December, 1879, and
sixteenth of May, 1871, date OF filing the
petition.
United States District Court-In Admir-
atty.
z. Cunningham and others against the
steamer Santa Martha.-Appeal dismissed.
G.. 4. Frazer against schooner Prima
Donna.-Default; plaintiff recovers $500.
L.. II. Shannon was appointed reporter OF
decisions Of this court.
Merchants Mutual Insurance Company
against the steamer Sabine-Detault en-
tered against Mrs. Sarah c. Shirley.
The marshal was ordered to pay Oft the
Jurors recently enlisted in the court at the
rate of three dollars per day.
The claims Of Bussey & Co. against the
steamer Colossal are ordered to be classl-
fed by the clerk.
sixth District Court.
GRAY VS.. Orlac.-The plaintiff claims a
divorce from her liege lord for the reason
that be maltreats, abuses, insults and beats
her. 1t appears the parties were married
in 1860, ard for some time drank deep OF the
cup of matrimonial bliss. Blu times changed.
The husband first became abusive, using
violent language. From abusive the ian
euage of The husband became insulting. the
terms ard epi.hets to the wife being such as
to defame her tair character. From insult
the husband easily passed TO blows-and
such blows! One of the witnesses testities
that he gave her a beating about TWO or
three months ago. which rendered her face
..black and blue for one mouth.
While l recognize IN the husband the
right to correct any misconduct OF the part
of his wife. the corrective must be such as
modern civilization approves; and without
intending to determine what quuatnm OF
punishment may be inflicted to insure do
mestic tranquility and promote matrl-
monial felicity, l must say that beating
ones wife until she becomes BLACK and
blue is beyond all reasonable limits, and
calculated to render their living together
unbcarable and impossible, besides being a
clear violation of the marriage contract.
The wife has made out her case Il is
entitled to a divorce.
Baptiste Moledous has entered suit in
this court against the city. claiming $500
damages. Petitioner alleges that in Au-
gust last he purchased from the city. for
the sum of 5000, the right and privilege
of collecting the fees due by butchers and
other persons selling and trading at the
Magazine Street Market Of this city; that
at the time of the purchase, and long be.
fore, a great many persons were Il had
been, with the permission of the city of New
Orleans. in the habit of trading II and sell
ing different articles of merchandise on the
sidewalk bordering the market, and fees
thereupon were paid to the previous
farmers: that at the time petitioner con-
tracted it was well understood that the col,
lection of fees was to be a part OF the
profits to be realized, and that this was
part of the consideration which induced
petitioner TO make the purchase.
Moledous alleges that as soon as the pur'
chase was concluded, the city OF New or
leans withdrew and revoked the aforesaid
privilege granted to the persons trading
and selling in the manne and place above
stated. and caused them to he driven away
from said place. At the expiration Of the
lease. the same privileges were restored Il
the vendors and sellers. and are SUI en-
loved by them. BY the aforesaid proceed
ings petitioner has suffered a loss ID the
amount above stated.
Before this court. on Monday. there were
tried, before juries. two cases involving the
| right to colnpel the city = return The
| amount OF license taxes paid by merchant
and Others during the past three vears TN
! dertLe license ordinances Of the city. Thes'
suits, which are similar 10 nearly two hun
drel more, were brought under 4 recen
decision of tie Supreme Court n lie c2s'
Of the City OF New Orleans IS. Home In
-.-. CL,,,,,- -, r-l;.lt - v-aS .l16;2a,
that the license ordinance. under which tn
tax was collected. was unconstitutional II
that i. violated article is OF the State con
stitution. which provides Tor an equal ant
uniform tax. IL both cases TIE juTlas rem
dared verdicts in favor % plaintiffs ant
against The city.
Eighth District Court-Con>eGHentiaE Dam
ages D~i.aIiOwed.
In this case tie plaintiff s-ed for so
damages. He claimed that he sent rs cIerl
on business TO Jackson. Mississippi; tina
the clerk went 20 have his trunk clecke,
to that point, but that the ~bag-age-maste
carelessly checked it to Philadelphia. Il
the trunk were certain bills for collection
and merchandise for delivery. The trunl
went on to Philadelphia. and the clerk wa
obliged to remain at Jackson for severa
DAYS, causing the plaintiff damages by til
failure of bis clerk to make collections AL
transact his business.
Judge Dibble held that while tie clerl
might have an action for the recovery 0
the value Of the personal effects III tn
trunk if it had been lost, or for the re
covery Of such actual damages as he ma.
have sustained by the non-delivery OF hi
personal effects. tie plaintiff, his employer
could not maintain an action for damage
sustained by the non-deiivery or miscal
riage of bills for collection. samples an
goods for delivery, because said articles ca
not be included as baggage. He quotes
The word baggage was held not 10 INCLUDE
a trunk containing valuable merchandise
and nothing else. although It did nor apPea
that the passenger had anyother trunk Wit
him; nor samples OF merchandise 10 enabl
him to make a bargain. Eedneld on Rail
roads, vol. ii. see. l|2. DtUDie VS.. brown
II Georgia, 2i7.'
Judge Dibble said: It is clear from til
examination of authorities. that when
person puts in his trunk bills for collection
goods for delivery, or anything else out o
which he expects TO make q profit, an'
which he does not intend 20 use simply IN
merely for his personal convenience ant
comfort, the carrier is not responsibl
either fer his miscarriage or actual losses
unless the passenger gives notice 20 III
company and makes a contract with tn
company to carry such effects.
This plaintiff has clearly suffered n
damages from the miscarriage Of the cloth
ing and personal effects OF his clerk. What
ever damage he did suffer resulted from hi
attempt to ship as personal baggage Of hi
clerk his own merchandise goods Cor de
livery and bills for collection.
Let there be Judgment for the Gefendan
dislnissing the plaintiffs action.
A new venire iacias has been ordered
and in giving his instructions Judge dbl
held to q determination OF enforcing ii
attendance of juryIucn, or else adjourn sin
die.