New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-02-22
THE COURTS.

THE COURTS.
The owners OF the steamer Richmond re-
ply. in the admiralty court, to the suit
against them by the owners OF the Sabine
Mrs. Sarah C. Shirley ct alsl, in the United
States District Court, by an answer and
cross libel Unconventional demand. In
this the claimants and cross llbeliants ad-
nit that the Sabine had about 1900 bales
of cotton at the time OF the collision, and
deny that her pilots were skillful, but say
they were careless and negligent. The
night, they go on to say, was not clear nor
was the Sabine, at the time. IN the usual
Mace for descending boats, and deny that
the Sabine gave two blasts to ner whistle,
alleging, on the contrary, that she was SO
much to the larboard as to run into the
Richmond on her larboard side. striking her
about ten feet aft her stern: admits that the
Sabine sunk in ten feet water, but denies
that she is total loss, and denies almost
everything else alleged in the petition but
the single fact that the Sabine was owned
by the parties who bring the libel. In the
course OF the cross-libel which goes on to
say that the Richmond left the city on the
eleventh of February, 1872. and vent mp
stream bound to st. Louis with a cargo OF
merchandise and full complement of
passengers. Then the language of the
cross-hbel goes on to place the burden OF
bringing about the collision on the Sabine,
and contains the allegations usual In such
cases of blowing whistles backing and fill
inn. In this it is alleged the Sabine was
cut of her place as a descending steamer,
attempting to hug the point: run down the
! left bank into the shore, making It impossi-
BILE for the Richmond to alter her course
| and avoid the collision. The Sabine was
| overloaded and unsafe The accident
caused the Richmond to leak badly, and
! she was forced to return to New Orleans,
| give up her voyage and lose her freight.
! The prayer is for the libel Of the Sabine
! owners to be dismissed and that they may
! be compelled to pay 81, 1000 damages
! The Merchants Insurance Company then
! sued or libeled both steamers, the company
! having insured cotton on board the Sabine
| belonging to I. l.. Airey 81 Co. which cot
! ton was lost, and $4,000 is claimed.
Petitions of Intervention were also nled
! in this case by lehman, NewgaSs q Co,
! .Jurev g. ellis and others, in which suits
| both steamers are libeled.
! A bill in chancery in the United States
! Circuit Court has been filed against tha
| Louisiana State Lottery Company by
| Miguel de Vorgas Machuca, subject of tie
King of Spain, who bases the complaint
! against the company on the clause OF the
constitution of the United States which con
fers on Congress the exclusive right to
regulate commerce with foreign nations,
| and the company by waging war on those
who import Havana lottery tickets, on
the strength of exclusive privileges given
| in the lottery act. cOntravene this clause.
In providing for collection Of damages
against any persons who sell other lottery
, tickets. the act infringes upon the judicial
| power. The bill closes in prayer for an
Injunction to restrain the company from
preventing the importation OF Havana
lottery tickets.
nj ;r%
court on the twenty fourth instant,
Judge Wharton Collens decided the case
of Joseph Bruncau VS.. the jackson Railroad
Company in favor Of the defendant. Plain
tiff can not have damages resulting merely
from want of fence when he has never put
| the defendants in default to make one, nor
signified to them bis consent that they
should make one, nor attempted to make
| one at their cost, even supposlDg the cost
would be chargeable to them, which is very
doubtful Is Ann, l05. To say the least,
there was negligence.
Judc &c Colens decided the case OF William
McKenna against Charles Morgan. 1t is
clear that the plaintiff contributed to the
| injury he received, for none of the other
men holding the capstan plate were hurt,
| though they were performing exactly the
same office. That they were able to man
age not to be hurt shows that the plaintiff
might, by exercising the same skill and
caution as they did, have avoided the catch
ing of his finger under the plate. There
was no difference of circumstance, time,
Office or manner to expose the plaintiff to
injury more than they were The evidence
shows that he was, in fact. careless, mat
tentive and unskilltul in doing his part IN
the common work. Judgment for defend
ant. The plaintiff is a mariner and sued ter
damages.
In the suit of Roman Brlgier against
Joseph Dick, the defendant WAS sued TO re-
cover possession of the store Of plaintiff, as
the defendant refused to pay rent, but 1t
appeared that the Sheriff in selling it ar
uounced verbally from the stand that the
purchaser would not have to pay rent.
Judge Theard concluded, in deciding the
case first, that the Sheriff has no authority
to explain the legal consequence OF the aa-
| Indication he is about to make: second,
that judicial sale of lease. or the right
Of occupancy, imposes upon the purchaser
the obligation OF paying the price to the
vendor, and that OF paying the rent accru
ing after the sale 70 the lessor. according to
the terms of the lease, and this whether it
is so announced OF not. The judge rea,
sonad in this case about as follows:
The sheriff was ordered to sell the right
of occupancy, and the evidence shows that
he was neither instructed nor authorized to
| give any legal explanation. His announce
ment, therefore, can have no legal force and
can in no manner affect the rights Of the
lessor. The defendant, who has been mis-
led by that announcement, has his recourse
against the sheriff for any loss which he
may have sustained.
As TO the meaning of the right Of occu-
paney, bought st a judicial sale, and It's
consequences, there is no question more
clearly defined, both under the old and the
new jurisprudence.
That the ordinary purchaser is bound for
the rent accruing subsequent to the sale has
been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The
present Supreme Court has, also, adhered to
, the same doctrine. See the case of Brinton
VS.. Datas, II A, ia. Judge Howell, Cell =
ering the opinion of the court said that the
defense was that the price paid was for the
occupancy of the premises during the term
| of the lease yet to run, and not as proyi-