New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-02-24
THE COURTS.

W. B. Woods, presiding Judge, will hold
session of the United States Circuit Court
on the ensuing Monday.
The time in which the ibelants were to
furnish bonds for costs in the case against
the steamer Richmond was extended Tor
ten days. The following list includes all
the interyenors in this immense case, on the
grounds already published in former re-
ference: Jury & ellis, Golsan d Brother,
b. NJ. Horrill & Co., Bussey & Co., Musson,
Prestidge & Co., Stewart g. McCarty, Wins
ton. Morrison & Co., Johnston Il Goodrich,
Clamp Brothers e. Co., Broadhax d Camp
bell. II. w. Farley & Co., +. u 5. Hender-
son, A. Levi j. p. Higgins & Co., Campbell
& Strong, Randall & Co., Commercial In
surance Company.
In the bankruptcy proceedings OF L. j.
Harrison a rule was taken on Joseph ID.
Weaver to show cause, on FrIulay, March l.,
why he should not deliver set of solitaire
diamond car rings.
suit against $4,000 cigars by the United
States has begun in the United States Cir
cult Court. The cigars were found in the
mandatory OF Alfred Dencke, in Carroll
ton, on the twentieth ultimo, and were
without stamps, as required by the act OF
July, 1868. and hence are liable to forfeiture
under the law. The cigars were bonded il
the sum Of S2S5.
A new trial was granted in the case of j.
S. jackson against William Golding, and
the jury verdict was set aside.
In the case of Daniels. Pippi & Plum
mer against II. M. Hyams the exception TO
the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was
sustained and the cause remanded to the
Seventh District Court.
Judge Theard yesterday decided the fol
lowing case:
George C. Walker against James S.
Clarke-Clarke, having imported sugar
from Cuba, shipped, in 1869. $40 boxes to
Walker, having obtained it without paying
duty. Walker sold the sugar, and rendered
an account of sales to ii. n. Soria & Co..
fle Intermediates between Clarke and him
self. The sugars were subsequently, seized
for non-payment of duty by the authorities,
the first knowledge Walker had they had
not been paid, and were only released at
his considerable expense, and he brings
suit to recover this amount of Clarke, with
lawyers fees. Judge Theard proceeds to
narrate the history of the transaction, and
conclude upon decision, the substance oil
which is as follows:
The sugars in question were libeled IN
Chicago and Dubuque. The ground set up
in the suits at Chicago Is, that the sugars
libeled were fraudulently removed from
the bonded warehouse in New Orleans with
out proper permits; and in the suit at Du-
buque, that they were frauduiently removed
without payment of the duties. Sufficient
evidence was gathered to sustain the
charges. Could Walkers vendees escape
condemnation l think not Did Walker
then exercise wise discretion in payin z
those duties Did he act with ordinary
prudence as mandatory acting for his
PRINCIPAL! lie certainly had sufficient rea-
sons to believe that the sugars would be
condemned. The parties to whom he had
| sold held him responsible
1t seems to me. that his conduct was a
| wise one and that of "a prudent mandatory,
| and therefore reject the ground OF defense
| urged by the defendant.
| AS to the defense that no fraud was per
petrated on the government, but that the
| sugars were simpl removed without proper
permits. it is hardly worth an answer. A
simple dilemma disposes of that point. The
defendant was either innocent or guilty OF
the fraud which is imputed to him. If III
nocent, he must be thankful to Walker for
| having paid the duties due to the United
States; if guilty, he could not avoid the
| condemnation. In either case, fhe pay
ment made by Walker for his principal was
| wisely made. And now as TO the amount
| of damages to be awarded to plaintiff. lie
claims $4,000, but he has failed to establish
| his right to that amount L believe, from
! a careful examination of the evidence. that
| $500 will be an ample remuneration tol
|
gold, the lawyers fees and other small eE
penses which he may have incurred.
For these reasons. let there be judgment
for plaintiff for 5000, with legal interest
| trom judicial demand. and costs.
The suit of b. NJ. Turnbull against tbs
! city of New Orleans and c. S. SaUvinet
| Sheriff. was for the Dullity of tax iud g
meut in which the plaintiffs property va;
| seized and about to be sold for satisfaction
of the Judgment, when be eni0ined the sale
! Mr. Dirrhafnmer sat in place of Judge Col
lens. at the Seventh District Court, and de
cded the case in plaintiffs favor. The
plaintiff, it is decided. neither resided. die
| business nor possessed property in i6b!
| within the city of New Orleans, but lvet
in Jefferson parish, and was assessed in New
| Orleans, on capital of $4,000, in the tourtl
assessment district. Judgment was zen
dered against him after the consolidation 0
Jefferson with New Orleans. The City AT
torney contended the Judgment was re
juaic0tn. The act of 1868, in force. regu
lates the collection Of municipal taxes II
the fourth section, as follows: THAT thu
| sheriff or the constable of any cOmpeten
court, in executing said writ OF seizure an'
sale on any Judgment rendered against
| delinquent taxpayer, shall not seize an,
other property than that designated in th
receipt or assessment roll as chargeable an'
liable for the tax so due" AS the plaintiff
had no capital in the parish, none could b
| proceeded against by publication citation
and hence this Judgment is d mere nuliity
| JUDGMENT decreed null, and the seizure Sc