New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-10

was dissolved, the dissolution publicly adj
vertised, and one of the partners, Henry
Won Phul, went to reside in the parish OF
East Baton Rouge.
In the year 1869, notwithstanding the
fact that the firm had ceased to exist, it
was assessed by the city as having capital
of 900, and tax imposed on it OF
SIP 80. Judgment was obtained in the
court qua in favor of the city against II.
Won Phul, Jr., & Co., for the amount of the
tax.
This suit was brought to annul this .judg-
ment. and having been decided i'll favor
of plaintiffs in nullity, the city has ap-
pealed.
The court declared in this instance the
person On whom this tax was assessed had
ceased to exist more than a year prior to
making the assessment. and the proper no.
tice had been given of this fact, and it
would surely be carrying the doctrine of
acquiescence too far to say that the persons
who had composed this firm were still
bound year after year, though perhaps resi-
dent elsewhere, to scrutinize the assess
ment roll, under the penalty Of being con
Guided by its recitaIs. Ii tax could be
saddled, in the method claimed on firm
which had ceased to exist year prior to
its imposition. why not on one which has
ceased to exist ten or fifty years before!
Judgment affirmed.
NJ. Grivot vs.. the Louisiana State Bank.
Appea! from the Fourth District Court for
the parish of Orleans.
This suit is brought for an alleged bal
ance in bank to the plaintiffs credit. The
answer denies tie material allegations and
AYERS that the hank was compelled by
military order Of General Banks to deliver
mp to the military authority Of the United
States all the fauds and money belonging
to- 1o, ii on h.A
petition that at the time the military
order was issued the city was governed by
martial law and the authority of the civil
government of the State in the city wholly
suspended. There was Judgment against
the plaintiff. and he has appealed. The
plaintiff contends that the military order
under which the defendant pretended to
act was general in its character and left
with the quartermaster and the bank to de-
termlne whose funds were subject to it 4:
that no special order to seize plaintiff s
funds by description being produced. it was
necessary defendant should show that
plaintiff came within all or either of the cate
gories specified in the military order, or in
the letter of General Banks explanatory
thereof
The letter adds: The balances of per-
sons who left the city upon its occupation
by the Union troops and have not returned,
OF nave uOI TeHtNtu their anu
whom we have reason to suppose to be ac-
lively identified with the rebellion. will be
held also by the government subject to any
just claims that may be made against
them
The defendant paid to the quartermaster,
under this general order and explanatory
letter OF General Banks, the moneys de-
posted in plaintiffs name in the Louisiana
State Bank. The plaintiff admitted that
the United States proceeded, in the year
1868, to sell his property under the act of
July %, 1862, entitled IAN act relative to
insurrecton in the United States" He also
admitted that he left New Orleans April
%, 1862 and did not return until after the
surrender Of General Smith
Judgment affirmed.
In addition to the published list of Su-
preme Court decisions of Monday, we an
mex the following, not handed i'll by the
court until to-day:
E. T. Merrick VS.. r. Z. McCausland.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
James Z. Souther VS.. Mrs. Lavinia Ed
wards.-Appeal dismissed.