New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-24
THE COURTS.
United States District Court-In Admf-
rally. t

latins the proper laws of the Treasury De-
partment, consisting in the arrival at the
port of New Orleans OF the vessel with la
passengers, all of whom were taken on
board at Palermo, in Sicily, foreign port
other than contiguous territory of the
brought here on the eighth of April last:
the single and double berths of the craft
were of less dimensions than required by
law, the single ones being less than six feet
in length and less than four feet in width,
the interval between the lower part and the
deck being less than nine inches, by reason
of which District Attorney Beckwith holds
the master of the Dric SOrella has forfeited
to the government the sum OF IS for each
passenger carried, which fine exists as a
lien on the vessel.
Certain insignificant clai,rs for mariners
wages against the steamer Belle Ida were
passed upon.
,laims of intervenors in the suit of the
Merchants Mutual Insurance Company
against the steamer Sabine and owners are
ordered to be referred to Commissioner
Shannon and passed upon with the other
claims against the Sabine.
United States District Court-In Bank
ruptcy.
The petition of E. E. Norton to force Eel
loves & Co. into bankruptcy was yester-
day decided in favor of the plaintiff, and
Thompson Greenfield, member OF the
clared bankrupts, the acts of the assignee
in the premises were ratified, and the pur-
chasers of property quoted in their pos
session.
In the matter of Richard Nugent, ac-
counts approved, and the assignee dis
charged of all liability.
Motion for a new trial has been filed by
Given Campbell, Esq, attorney for James
j. TarletOn ct ais, assignees Of Given,
Brandies & Crawford, to show cause why
this trial should not be granted, because,
among other grounds, the verdict of the
.Lry was in defiance Of the charge Of the
judge, and therefore erroneous.
United States Circuit Court.
1t was ordered that S. B. Packard, United
States marshal, pay to- the grand jurors of
the court for the November term, ending
twentieth of April, their per diem, amount
ing to 50 day, for each days attendance;
that the petit jury be paid the same sum
for each day of active attendance, and that
the special jurors ba also paid.
H. L. Stone vs.. Willoz & Rostand. Con-
tinued indefinitely.
G. A. Lally VS.. E. Marin. The court took
time to advise.
S. S. Kimball vs. Charlotte H. Taylor ct
ais. The court took time to advise.
An appeal to the United States Circuit
Court from judgment of the United
States District Court, has been taken in the
following cases:
United States VS.. Steamer Henry Ames.
United States vs.. Steamer C.. B. Church.
United States VS.. Steamer Dexter.
William Doyle ct al. VS.. Steamer Lotta-
wanna.
Thomas Groom VS.. Steamer Carrie A.
Thorn.
The suit of the Louisiana Lottery Com
pany against Thomas Brother has been
transferred to this court from the Sixth
District Court of Orleans.
Supreme Court.
The opposition growing out of the sue
cession Of Navarro the court defined to be
contest for the property of Jean Baptiste
Navarro, who was bigamist. He was mar
ried in his native country (Italy) in August,
1888, to Marie Massneas. He came to Lou
isiana in l84l, and in 1851 he was married
by Justice of the peace in Louisiana to
Anastasie Lefranc. notwithstanding his first
marriage was undissolved.
Both Anastasie and Navarro died within
few days each of the other, and his wife
in Italy, his son and relatives, contested for
the property.
The court quo decided that each of the
two wives was entitled to one-half of the
community, and rejected the demand of
Mrs. Anselmi. From that judgment she has
appealed;
gitimacy or the inegitimacy Of Paul Angus
tin Navarro, the issue Of the putatiye
marriage in Italy.
The Civil Code provides that "the mar
riage which has been declared null produces
nevertheless It's civi! eject, as it relates to
the parties and their children, if it has been
contradicted in good faith Art. liz. If
only one of the parties acted in good faith,
the marriage produces it's civil effects only
in his or her favor and in favor Of the child
born Of the marriage. Art. ll8.
Good faith in contracts is always pre-
sumed; the onus of proof is on him W 40
alleges fraud or bad faith. After Careful
examination of the evidence we r.re salts
fed that Anastasia acted in good faith in
contracting the marriage with Navarro.
Nothing in the record shows that she had
ing a living wife in Europe. The Justice of
the peace who performed the ceremony,
and other male witnesses v, 40 had lived
long time in the place whf ,re the marriage
was performed, had ne-ser heard Of his
having living wife in. Europe, and they
believed him to be an unmarried man.
1t seems to be.con .:eded in argument that
it was not prove Il that she knew before
marriage that rs had wife in Europe, but
it is insisted nis knowledge was communi-
Gated to her after her marriage, but before
the cOnce, Ition of the child. The only eyi-
dence OF. this subject is the testimony OF the
claim ant, Mrs. Anselke herself She says:
'.ln conversation with my brothers wife
Curing my visit to the parish OF Plaque
mines, and after the marriage, my sister
in-law, it was stated, Lefranc told me that
she did not recognize me and my mother as
related to her; that her only relatives were
on her mothers and brothers side"
I then said to her: You said we are not
related to you because you are aware that
nv brother is married in Italy, and if his
wife comes here this would not be agreeable
to YOU" She then answered that she did
not care.
She saws this conversation occurred be-
fore the birth of the child due from the mar
riage OF my brother with Anastasie Lefranc.
She can not see the date of this converse
ton. She can not state whether it was
year or not after the marriage, nor now
long after the marriage before the child was
born.
Her memory is bad, and her testimony is
vague and unsatisfactory.
II we were to give full evidence to all she
says, the evidence would fail to establish
knowledge in Anastasie that her husband
had another wife living in Europe. 1t GER
tainly does not prove that such knowledge
was acquired before the conception of the
child.
We see no reason for disturbing tho judg-
ment appealed from.
Second District Court.
The suit of Mrs. Wheyland, wife of the
~c Al .1.%rv &nv,