New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-06

This is petitOry action for some lands sit
uated in the Third District. The plaintiff
has made out, in my judgment, clear case.
There is no defense whatever to it. The
only defense urged, which might have any
serious bearing. was the plea of presumption
of ten years. But it is shown from the
time of the adjudication and purchase of
the property by Fuentes, under fieri facias
from one of the courts of the State on a
Judgment against Mrs. Gaines, there has not
been ten years. Therefore, the defense has
failed in the only serious defense urged, and
there must be Judgment i'll favor Of the
plaintiff.
The Slaughterhouse Company has fled in
the Eighth District Court a suit to stop
of butchering cattle on the right bank.
In the case of Mary K. Wheyland, pray
ing for a writ of mandamus to compel j.
Pinckney Smith, Warrant Clerk of the
House of Representatives,, to issue war
rants under a resolution awarding to the
widow of Walter Wheyland the mileage
and per diem due him as member of the
House, another Mrs. Wheyland has filed
petition OF Intervention, praying to be adj
judged the true claimant to the warrants in
question.
Mrs. Maria Hernandez, late widow of
Thomas +. Hunt. and present wife of Au-
gustus w. Walker. has filed petition in
this court representing that she is the owner
of two lots of ground, with the buildings
and improvements thereon, in the First
District of New Orleans, bounded by St.
Charles. Carondelet, Hev1a and Girod
streets; that petitioner signed an act pur-
porting to be an act of sale Of the aforesaid
property to John S. Tully for the sum of
$4,000, part cash and the balance in three
promissory notes for $2666 &C; that in fact
no money was paid by Tully to petitioner
or any other person, and the notes were
taken possession of by her husband, A. w.
Walker, and neither they nor the proceeds
ever came into her possession, nor did she
ever secure the benefit or advantage there
from, and for the purpose of evidencing the
fact that the same was a sale, but simHla-
ton Tully executed and delivered to petit
toners husband counter letter, copy of
which is filed.
Petitioner AYERS that the sale was, in fact
and in effect, mortgage of her property
for the purpose of borrowing money for the
use of her husband, and it was SO stated to
her by him before and at the time she signed
the act; that she had refused to sign it, and,
at the moment of signing, she inquired if it
was an act of sale, and she was answered
that it was as it had been previously ex-
planned to her, which she understood to
mean that it was a mortgage, and that she
was not alternating her property; that she
was not examined by Judge or notary,
separate and apart from her husband, and
signed it under coercion, undue influence
and misrepresentation, from which she was
not shielded by an examination separate
and apart from her husband, as aforesaid.
That she did not know that said act was
sale and a liquidation of her property
until recently, when she discovered that
the same was under seizure, and advertised
for sale by the Civil Sheriff under a writ of
seizure and sale issued by the Fourth Dis
trict Court, which writ issued at the in
stance of f. Lemonge, plaintiff therein, who
was the holder of one of the three notes
given by Tully as part of the purchase price
of said property. and secured by mortga ge
and the proceedings in said Fourth Dis
trict Court petitioner has enjOined, and
the sale of said property has been stayed.
That William Mclean, residing in this city.
holds the two other notes given by Tuliv,
and has threatened that he is about to in
stitute proceedings on said notes.
Whereupon she prays for an injunction
restraining the said parties from further
attempting to enforce said mortgage against
her and her property.