New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-11
THE COURTS.
United states Circuit Court.

United States Circuit Court.
j. Thompson, Jr., vs.. H. Russ, minor.
Verdict set aside, and new trial granted.
A. b. Seelye VS.. B. F. Flanders.-Excep-
ton overruled. Tue suit was originally
brought in the Sixth District Court. but
was transferred to the present tribunal. 1t
related to the payment of charges on 100
bales Of cotton stored by the defendant in
1866, as supervising agent of the United
States treasury, the plaintiff claiming that
the payment of these charges by Flanders
written order was dead loss to him,
amounting to something over $4,000 The
exceptional point in the above consisted in
this: that the court had no jurisdiction to
enter into an investigation, as it would con-
tict with the act of Congress relating to
abandoned property, and besides would
tend to make the defendant, as supervising
agent, liable for the performance of duties
within the service of the United States.
Yaeger & Co. vs. John Il. Roots.-Excep-
ton sustained. Suit dismissed. and re-
hearing applied for.
Parties interested in the Erath distillery.
in limbo for violation of the revenue law,
it was ordered the costs be taxed by the
clerk
Violet, against c. E. Phillips, the seizure
by the Civil Sheriff of certain property is
ordered released, defendant having filed
bond.
John G.. Cocks VS.. lizard, Lewis substi-
tuted. Defendants to show cause on the
twentieth April why the appeal should not
be dismissed, on the ground of insutiicency
of bond.
United states District COurt-In Bank
ruptcy.
In the case of liable & Dalton, the as
sigree is to show cause on the twenty-second
why he should not be ordered to pay Duprv
the landlord, by preference, out Of the
S24l6 surrendered
The assignee in the case of Sizer & Owen
is TO show cause on the thirteenth why he
should not pay Moss out of the proceeds Of
the goods sold SD.
United States District COurt-In Admit
rally.
Frank T. Case and ii. y. Ogden admitted
to practice.
To-day the court will charge the jury in
the case of Norton & Tarleton against
Brandies & Crawford.
Fourth District Court.
Our bankers and merchants will doubtless
read with interest the following elaborate
opinion, delivered this morning by Judge
Paul f. Tneard, in which he holds that the
Western Union Telegraph Company is re-
sponsible for the erroneous information
communicated to the Bank of New Orleans
in relation to the New York money market:
Bank of New Orleans VS.. the Western
Union Telegraph Company.-The Western
Union Telegraph Company undertook to
forward to the bank daily reports Of the
fluctuations in the money market of New
York.
On the second of November, 1870. the
company sent to the bank four kilograms.
as follows: 10 A. NJ, gold opens l2S; 1890
A. NJ, gold l21 Is; II NJ, gold 1885; 3 Z. NJ,
gold closed ETA.
c. Cavaroc, the president of the bank. |
immediately made heavy purchases of for |
elgn exchange. amounting altogether to |
Sl73,Sl6 -, between halfpast twelve and |
two o clock the same day.
HE bank telegraphcd to their agents in
New i ork, and the answer led to the dis
covery that the twelve o'clock telegram, on
which the operations Of the bank had been
based, was erroneous, the real state of gold |
at that hour being l275s, instead of l:!Sas.
a ditie rence of one per cent.
The loss was OF one per cent on the
amount Of exchange Opel atoms done that
day by the bank, Sl73S l6 hence this suir
which is brought by the Bank of New Or
leans to recover that amount from the
Western Union Telegraph Company. The
demand Is met by q peremptory exception
and by general denial.
The exception is that the business under
taken by the company was not within the
sphere Of thesohect for which it was cstab-
llshed. The exception is without founda-
ton.
As to the merits, the allegations of plain
tiff are ali proved, and the case is made ont.
There are two other objections to the de-
maud of the bank, to wit:
!. That the company's kilograms were
based ON the indicator of the Gold and
Stock Company of New York.
:. That these defendants did not under
take to transmit information to the bank
for purposes of speculation.
IL Ia trQp that he uuot of cold
taken from the indicator OF the Gold and
Stock Company placed in the office OF de-
1endants in New York, and that the error
was not theirs. The error resulted from
some defect in the machinery of the indi-
Gator, which was not managed BY the de-
PENDANTS. But this fact can not exonerate
them. They might have obtained corrent
information from the Gold Room Tie indi-
Gator III their Office was placed there for
their convenience.
True 1t is, also, that the error was neither
voluntary nor wlllful. But they have nm
dertaken to give correct information, and
the one furnished being erroneous, they are
necessarily liable for their error.
The last objection urged is equally IN
tenable. The object OF the bank IN paying
for these dispatches is to know at different
times Of the day the fluctuations of the
money market in order to buy or sell ac-
cordingly The loss suffered by the bank
results clearly from the incorrectness of the
information received, and there is no doubt
in my mind that the telegraph company is
liable, Judgment for Iaintitts.
supreme Court.
j. Madison VOLS VS.. Bernard Ehrstein-
Appeals from the Fifth District Court. par
ish Of Rapides.-The plaintiff sues for the
settlement OF the partnership which, he
says, existed between him and the de-
"A t,,,ct