New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-02-08
THE COURTS.

The owners of the Emily B. S0uder,
against which steamer a libel was filed III
the United States District Court recently,
| have answered. The brig Sofia was in
tow by the Tecumseh, the captain of the
| towtOat being intoxicated and incapable OF
| performing duty, according to the allega-
lions of the answer. The following is the
story of the collision The SOuder crossed
the bar on the thirteth Of January last, at
6:l5 A. M, and sighted the city after going
up the river at 7:20 p. NJ, on the way to
her wharf. While ascending the stream op-
made up, was discovered lying at the levee
ahead of the steamship, whereupOn the
SOuder blew three blasts on her whistle to
let the tow know of her coming: that, re-
ceiving no answer to the signal, she blew
twice again, but no answer was given to
the second signal; that when she arrived
opposite the government wharf the tow
got under way, swung out from the
levee, and stood into the river, whereupon
the Souder gave one whistle, meaning that
she would keep to the right, and she was
then run in as near to the shipping as safety
would permit, and blowing one more whis
tie, and still receiving no answer, tried to
stop the engines which could not be done
before the tow, consisting of the Sofia and.
Tecumseh, struck the Souder on the port
side abaft the fore rigging.
Inc sui Ol tnt Oultcu Otittts dSdiuSt
George Jonas, in the United States Circuit
Court, for damages arising from the act of
the defendant in not complying with the
terms of sale of a piece of property, resulted
in favor of the defendant, the jury finding
that there was no evidence of authority ON
the part of the SecreRry OF the Treasury to
make the sale.
In the following decision, which Judge
Theard rendered yesterday morning, his
ha1 hot uyb oil lind NJ ta
right to return goods, on the ground that
they are unstable, he must return them
within reasonable time, otherwise the
warranty is at end:
Henry Disston & Son vs. E. NJ. Ivens &
CO-Plaintiffs sue on an acceptance of de-
PENDANTS for $77S %, and seven per cent in
terest from July II, 1871.
Defendants admit execution of accept
aflce of draft, but plead failure of consldera-
ton.
They show defect of one saw only, by
breaking of one tooth, or may be two teeth;
but they do not attempt to prove the extent
of the damage. They claim that plaintiffs
are bound to receive back the saw, and de-
duct the price of the same, under their
warranty. But from the testimony of
Noyes, it is probable that the tooth or .eeth
were broken off by coming in contact with
spike or the iron dog. And they have not
returned the saw within a reasonable time,
as required by law. Nay, it seems that no
tender or offer to return was ever made;
and, lastly, there is no positive proof that
the saw was embraced in the account for
which the acceptance was given.
Under these circumstances ! have no
hesitation in saying that the law and the
evidence are against the defendants who
have utterly failed to make out their de-
tense.
For these reasons let there be judgment
for plaintiffs as prayed for.
Thomas Duffy has entered suit in the
Seventh District Court against Philadelphia
Fire Company No IA, to recover 1896, the
value of mule, cart and harness alleged
to have been destroyed by collision with
the hose carriage of said company On Feb
ruary 81, 1871. Plaintiff AYERS that he is
drayman, engaged in the employ Of a firm
on Magazine street, before whose store his
mule and dray were standing on the day in
question, aud in position as near the curb
stone as possible, when the horse and hose
carriage of No. Ia came tearing down the
street, and coIliding with his establishment
broke his dray to pieces and injured the
mule SO that he subsequently died. He
therefore institutes claim for $500 dam
ages suffered in the premises.
In the case of David Magner VS.. the city
of New Orleans, in the Eighth District
Court, on motion of II. H. Walsh, assistant
attorney for the city of New Orleans, 1t is
ordered that the plaintiff show cause on the
thirteenth instant why new trial should
not be granted for this, among other rea-
sons: Because the court erred in charging
the jury that the Finance Committee of
the city of New Orleans could bond the city
for a debt, and in that manner interrupt
prescription.
Benjamin F. Flanders, Mayor of the city
of New Orleans, has made the affidavit.
He doposes and says that since the trial be
has discovered new evidence, which could
not be obtained on the trial OF this cause,
although he had used every effort and dill
gence in his power to procure the necessary
testimony, by which testimony he expects to
prove that no violence or damage was done
to plaintiffs grocery by mob, or that he
has suffered any loss or damage as alleged.