New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-05-04
THE COURTS.
United States District COurt-In Admi-
rally.

0S SOAA AuAuG
rally.
A. Miltenberger VS.. w. n. Mercer.-Spe
cial Jury of merchants ordered to be i'm
paneIed to try the cause, and to appear il
court on May 8.
F.. Hagerty VS.. Schooner Camelia, James
Devine and VOralis.-The object sought
being the sale of the vessel, it is ordered
in consequence of the agreement of coun
sci, that the vessel be sold on the fourth OF
May to the highest bidder.
United States District Court.
A suit By the United States government
has been entered against Isaac Wood ct
ais, on warehouse pond forfeiture.
L. Stewart ct ais. VS.. Andrew Stewart ct
ais. COmplainants ruled to show cause on
the thirteenth of May why the injunction
should not be dissolved.
United States VS.. vinegar factory. In
junction dismissed-nOn suit.
w. A. BOardevant Us. A. G.. Watson.
Plaintiff RECEIVERS Of defendant $I45I as
damages and costs.
j. NJ. Barclay VS.. board of levee commits
siOuers. Judgment of default.
The following gentlemen constitute the
L. D. Wharton, F. Y. De GIu7. O. j. For
stall, William 2. Converse, Z. r. Poole,
John H.. Keep, H Cards. NJ. r. Chew. J.
N. Lewis, L. H. Gardner, Z. II. Keeps, Ed
mOnd Beverages. Z. +. Virgin. II. F. Given.
c. Newton, j. 7. Hardie, I. BaiIly Blanch-
ard.
Fourth District Court.
Mrs. Ce'e ste Eaton VS.. E. Surgi-Plain-
tiff in this case sues for the recovery of
$500, which she has spent in repairing and
cOmpletilg a house belonging to her, and
which was built by the defendant under a
written contract with plaintiff.
The defendant, who is an architect and
builder, admits the existence of the con-
fp1af hrF ~ 4Ia+ h Ln- a--l1-@-l IL
building, and that the same has been re-
ceived and paid for by plaintiff after a care
tuI examination thereof; and that while the
work was going on plaintiff and her hus-
band, who were living in the adjoining house.
witnessed its progress in all its details, n
that it was with the full knowledge of the
nature and condition of each and every
part thereof that she received, settled for
and took possession Of the same.
1t appears from the evidence that the
contract between these parties was entered
into by authentic act, on the seventeenth of
August, 1869, and that the building was
finished in March of the following year.
No dispute took place while the work was
progressing. The payments were mad. in
strict compliance with the terms Of the con
tract. Tn plaintiff and her husband were
in the habit, almost every day, of visiting
the place. The plaintiff occasionally made
inquiries as to the manner of doing certain
portions Of the work. She suggested some
changes, which were agreed to-, but she
never complained in relation to anything.
AS to the nature of the work the evidence
is somewhat contradictory. Some of the
plaintiffs witnesses state that they do not
believe that the building was erected in
conformity with the specifications OF the
contract, and they point out certain repairs
and alterations which became necessary af-
ter the delivery of the premises. But the
nafnnhn nTFu ~
testify that the building was erected in a
WOrkmanlike and skillful manner, and that
at the tim Of its completion it was worth
SIOOO, although the amount paid by
plaintiff was $3.50 only.
1t Is unnecessary, however. to discuss
that point, because it is satisfactorily shown
that, prior to the final settlement. the work
was carefully examined by plaintiff and
her agents, and that she accepted the same.
The law is too plain on that question to leave
any doubt in the mind Of the court. When
a builder has erected a house, and the pro
prietOr has taken possession without max
objections to the work. he can not after
ward urge that there was. some slight devi.
atoms from the contract. nor withhold the
payment. (See Mitchell VS.. CureII. xi. L.
$50, aud Clark VS.. Kemper, 3 r, 49, And
the voluntary execution of a contract, with
the full knowledge of the grounds upon
which it might be rescinded. amounts to a
ratification of it. 5R., 354: 6R., 443: 8 L.,
500
For these reasons, let plaintiffs claim be
rejected, with costs.
Sixth District Court.
In the case of Joubert g. Co Sieg &
Mary DOhan, Hirsch & Adler, Darcy &
Wheeler, Mrs. L. NJ. Stella, Hugh Cassidy,
Claiborne q Boyle, A. Douosan and ID. II.
Holmes against the city of New Orleans, 10
recover money paid for licenses. Jury trial
was waived by the city and Judgment rem
Rred in favor OF plaintiffs.
Some time ago the HIbernia Bank brought
suit in the Seventh District Court against
W. G. Wilde to recover $1,000 on a check
had been paid TO the person in mes
ton, but for which there were no funds on
hand.
After the decision Of the suit in favor of
defendant, he instituted proceedings against
the bank in the Sixth District Court, claim
ing damages for defamation of character. in
that the bank in its petition in the original
suit alleged that he 'fraudulently obtained
said money by cheat and misrepresenta-
ton" The bank filed an exception, in
which it was claimed that the allegations of
a petition in a suit could in no wise render
the petitioner liable TO an action for dam
ages for SANDER.
Judge Cooley yesterday morning, in dis
the exception. held that "ordina-
rily it has been the ruling that allegations
in RetitiOns could not be taken as SANDER
ous. but where such allegations are pareiv
malicious, and are entie1y unnecessary for
the prosecution OF the suit, to either she
plaintiff or defendant, they are slanderGls,
and subject the author thereof to an action
for damages"
Seventh District Court,
On and after Monday, May 6, 1872, the
trlal Of any case, If commenced and untin-
lshsd, shall be proceeded with the next day,
ana so on from day to day till the trial is