New Orleans Republican., 1872-05-08

The plaintiff was set at Work 10 prepare
the store for the reception Of a stock
Of goods, and the defendant went on
to New York for the stock. While in New
York the defendant modified his plans some
what, and concluded to take a partner and
carry on a business at a store on the OpDO-
site side Of Char.r stree t, and sell at whole
sale not only fancy goods and notions, but
dry goods The plaintiff thereup0n refused
to work for him, giving as a reason that he
did not know the dry goods business and
did not like the defendants house, and he
was therefore discharged.
This was in August, 1869. In October.
1869, plaintiff returned to the employment
Of the firm where he had been when the
defendant engaged him, and at the same
salary he had then received $4,000 per an
NUM-, and his work was that OF Il general
salesman, the business of his employers be
ing to sell at wholesale dry goods, fancy
goods and notions,
We must confess our inability 10 perceive
IL these facts any foundation for the judg-
ment appealed from.
1t will hardly be cOntended that a mer-
chant who has employed a clerk with the
expectation Of opening a store on the south
west corner Of a street, has not the right to
open on the northeast corner, and there re
quire the services of his emplOye, or that
such change Of plan will subject him to
an action Of damages or to the penalty Of
article 2749 of the Revised Civil Code.
Nor do we think it can be COntended with
much more force that a merchant who EN-
ploys a clerk With the expectation Of carry
ing on business alone preclUdes himself
from the legal right to take a partner, or
that such change of plan will subject him
to an action of damages Or to the penalty
of the article
If the new partner we're person OF in
famous character. or should treat the clel k
uniustly, the rights OF the clerk might be
changed, but there is no allegation or proof
in this case of any such state of things.
There is nothing left in this record, then.
on which to base the Plaintiffs claim, eX
cept the theory that the defendant changed
his business in such a way that the plalntltt
properly refused to work for him, and his
discharge was therefore unlawful under ar
ticle ? 49 Of Revised Civil Code Admit
ting for the sake of argument that com
plete change of business. as from that of a
grocer TO that of gIInsmlth, would justify
this position, we do not find any such state
OF facts in this case. A witness of eXpe-
rience states that the dry goods business
and the notions business are the same
thing. THAT is he says, dry goods
houses usually keep notions; some more and
some less
1t is therefore ordered that the Judgment
appealed from be reversed and that there
be Judgment in favor Of defendant, with
costs in both courts.
Third District Court.
In this court Adam Schmidt, a car driver
in the employ Of the New Orleans City
railroad, applied for and obtained an in
junction which stopped the prosecuting
plaintiff from garnisheeing his salary, on
the strength of the act to amend that i'm
al, Io { in
relation to the practice of 5heritfs. This
act, approved April %, 1872, recites: The
sheriff can not seize the linen and clothes
belonging to the debtor or his wife; nor
his bed nor those of his family; nor his
arms and military acCOutrements; nor the
tools and instruments and books necessary
for the exercise Of the calling, trade or pro
fcssiOn by which he makes a living: nor
shall be in any case seize the rights OF per-
sOnaI servitude, of use and habitatiOn, OF
usufruct to the estate Of a minor child; nor
the income of dOtal property; nor m0uey
due for the salary of an officer; nor wages;
nor TecOmpense for personal services: nor
house or kitchen furniture to the value of
$500.
Tins act is tested at present "along the
whole line, and the force Of COnstables are
opposed with it in their rounds every day.
In case before Justice Montamat, on
Saturday, involving the operation of act
No. 80, Lis honor ordered the issuance OF a
writ OF provisional seizure, on the follow
ing Ct Dds:
l. That there is no repeating clause in the
act in question.
> That the prohibition" exists only
against the sheriff, ministerial officer of a
competent court and not against cOnsta-
bIes, who are not officers Of courts Of record.
3. That article seyeuty-eIght OF the con
0f1