New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-05-24

was confirmed eXecutrix Hereunder, and
received letters of exeeutOrship.
Upon these being given her, Mrs. Resley,
not disputing the Natchez will to this ex-
tent, the subsequent will having named her
sxecutrix. applied to the court, under article
1870 Civil Code, to have Mrs. Burke, exeeu-
trix, give bond in the sum of Sl0,OOO before
being put in possession, and the court SO
ordered.
Mrs. Burke then took two rules, one upon
Generes to compel him to surrender TO her,
as executrix, the property IN his hands, and
the other on Mrs. Resley, to set aside the
order requiring her to give bonds. These
rules were fixed for yesterday, but were
continued till Monday, the third June next.
When the rules came up yesterday for
trial a third party interviewed, to wit, Mrs.
Elliott. widow Of the deceased, calling on
Mrs. Burke for security in the amount al
ready fixed by the court, and requiring
also Mr.. Generes to produce in court the
mortgage notes forming the subject of
the controversy. 1t should be mentioned,
also, that Mrs. Burke has fled a suit in
these proceedings to break the will under
which Mrs. Risley claims a particular
legacy of over $4,000, and to set aside its
probate; and Mrs. Risley has also filed
suit setting forth her claim as particular
legatee, and asking that the specific prop
erty, say over $4,000 in mortgage notes, be
delivered to her. This last suit has been
brought both against Mrs. Burke and Mr..
Generes. There are many attorneys engaged
in this controversy.
Third District Court.
Some time ago Judgment was rendered
against ex-Recorder Becker, before justice
OF the peace, on a claim for a sum of money.
Becker being absent at the time, the court
appointed a curator ad hoe to represent
him. Under this judgment an execution
was issued, and defendants property was
seized, but Just about then the ex-recorder
returned, and applied to the Third District
Court for an injunction to stop the seizure,
and set up that the Judgment rendered
against him should be declared null for
want of citation, inasmuch as he had an
agent here to represent his interests while
absent, and therefore tine appointment of a
curator was uncalled for and Illegal. The
case is now under advisement.
Seventh District Court.
In a certain case in this tribunal judg-
ment had been rendered a month or two
ago, previous to the passage of the law ex
emp ting furniture to the value OF 5000 from
seizure.
The plaintiff issued his execution and two
or three days after the exemption law was
promulgated, made the seizure of furniture
belonging to defendants valued at 500.
The defendant ruled the plaintiff to show
cause why the seizure should not be set
aside After hearing argument the court
decided that true it was the Legislature
could modify the remedy to which parties
might be entitled in order to force their
contracts, but such modification would be
unconstitutional if in effect it impaired the
contract itself or 80 operated as to deprive
either party of the intrinsic rights they pos
sessed before; that the exemption now con-
tended for would not, therefore, affect OF
diminish the rights the plaintiff possessed
against the property of his debtor previous
to passage of the statute that that statute
could not have a retroactive effect.
United states Circuit Court.
Margaret Caldwell VS.. Bank of New Or
leans-This case was submitted.
Don Marcus Radich vs.William G. Hale
Verdict in favor of defendant. Important
cotton case.
United States VS.. Oscar Simmonli-This
cause was submitted.
United States VS.. Alfred Dupasseur ct
als.-Time for answering extended to the
first day of October next.