New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-02-29
THE COURTS.

| her husband, TO snow cause why Cnoy SnOulu
not deliver to her certain valuable papers
containing the last will of the deceased, and
red card representing bank box, in
which her fathers last will. was, and some
other valuables amounting to 5000 IN cur
rency, which she charges them with having
taken from the armOir Of the deceased on
the day of his death. In answer, the de-
PENDANTS in rule deny that they, or either OF
| Them ever took or had in their possession
any papers, valuable or otherwise, nor card,
nor bank box, nor anything else belonging
to the deceased, George Damn, and they
deny having any knowledge whatsoever OF
the existence of any of the articles men
toned in this rule.
After dismissing the rule, the judge goes
on to say:
| This action seems to have been brought
upon information given by a fortune teller,
as disclosed by the testimony of one OF the
| Interested witnesses. | must inform the
parties that such information is considered
! of very little weight by this court, nOtwith
standing the credence and faith that they
| may have in such witchcraft.
In the case Of LeFranc against the city
| of New Orleans, the plaintiff seeks to en-
join the city on the ground that the tax
/ Judgment was obtained against the prop
| erty without proper and legal citation.
Judge Cooley said LAS to the point what
constitutes legal citation, the law makes
the publication Of the tax lists in the official
journal a constructive citation. 1t is con-
tended, however, that the property ap-
peared as assessed in the name of Mrs Mas
sac, which, although at one time the name
of this plaintiff, was afterward changed to
LeFranc, by marriage. The act of the
Legislature made the publication of the
lists constructive citation, and as the
property was assessed in the name OF Mas
sac. it could not be bounden upon the Legis-
lature to make o law to compel a change in
the assessment lists each time a property
holder changes her name, for the result
would be complete bar to recovering
taxes from women who might get married
a dozen times. Let the Injunction be dis
dissolved"
In the case of Herman Dannell against
the city, the plaintiff brought suit to nave
the resolution authorizing the laying of con-
crete pavement in front Of his property on
st. Charles street declared null and void.
1t seems that the City Council passed a res
clution authorizing contract with Page &
Co. to lay in font OF certain property on St.
Charles avenue Burns improved banquet
ing. Subsequently the Mayor made the
contract, and the parties went to work
Plaintiff alleges that the contract was in
violation of the city charter, which provides
that contracts for an amount exceeding $500
must be advertised, asking for bids or pro-
posals, and the contract must be adjudi-
Gated to the lowest bidder.
In this case it seems that these conditions
were not fulfilled. The resolution fixed the
price and authorized the Mayor to contract
for the work. Defendant excepted on the
ground that there was no cause of action.
1t seems to me that as this suit was COM
menced before the completion of the work,
it amounted to a notice that the payment
for the same would be contested, and that
it was brought to prevent the filing of the
very claim now made by Page 4 Co. This
being clearly the object of the suit, the ex-
ception can not be maintained. As regards
the illegality of the contract there can be
no question. The Supreme Court has al
ready passed upon a similar case in which
the city of Jefferson made contract with
out having advertised for proposals, and,
therefore, under that decision, must con
slider the contract in this case as null and
void.
In the case of Summers & Brannins
against j. 5. Clarke, the plaintiffs sue the
defendent for money paid upon sugars to
relieve them from seizure by the United
States for not paying duty Their grounds
are that they made the payment for the
benefit of Clarke, and the facts are as fol-
lows: II. n. Soria & Co, of New Orleans
imported from Havana, for the. benefit of
}. 5. Clarke, a quantity OF sugars, which
remained in the government warehouse in
this city until shipped to Louisville, Ken
lucky, under transportation bond given
BY the former. 1t seems that the sugars
were received at Louisville by the CORE
spondents of Soria & Co. and Summers &
Brannins and sold by them to various
parties, without having been placed in the
government warehouse as required in the
bond. subsequently the government OBJ
tanned evidence that tie sugars had evaded
the duty. and libeled them in the hands of
the parties who purchased them from Sum
mers & Brannins.
The plaintiffs were of course appealed to
by the vendees. and determined on paying
tue duties claimed, with COST thereby re-
leasing the sugars to the vendees. The
court decided that inasmuch as the sugars
in the hands OF innocent purchasers were
not liable to forfeiture, Summer & Brannin
exceeded their obligations in paying the
claim. That they could not be considered
as acting as agents for Clarke, inasmuch as
he was not the importer, and that he did not
give the transportation bond. That had
Soria & Co. paid the claim brought by the
government, they might have had recourse
against Clarke in settlement of accounts
which existed between them. A Judgment
of non suit was ordered.
Among the bankruptcy proceedings yes
terday was the verdict in the case of A.
Grouchy against Felix Heer, wherein the
plaintiff sought to force the defendant into
bankruptcy. The jury dismissed the pro-
ceedings at compliments cost.
The answer Of Heer AYERS that he was
persuaded by Herring Destez and Grou-
chy, the parties complainant, to make 4
sham transfer of furniture to them, which
he proceeded to do and to remain in his
own store as clerk, and when the compro
mise was effected with the creditors Heer
was TO get his furniture back But the
creditors attached the stock in the district
courts. Then the parties insisted on his
going into bankruptcy as this would shut
off the proceedings of the creditors. This
he refused. Heer being persuaded to leave
the store, Heering proceeded, according to
the answer, 'to run off the furniture"
Then Heer confessed judgment in the dis
trict court, and the property was seized
before Heering could convert it to his own
use, the defendant doing this to preventive
creditors being swindied. Grouchy OBJ
tanned the obligation ON which he sued
after the sale, and hence the defendant
charged it was a fraudulent attempt to
force him into bankruptcy, inasmuch as
Grouchy desired to defend the creditors.
Indeed, the jury so considered it, and rem
dered their verdict in accordance with the
answer.
In the Circuit Court of the United States
the suit of Nelson B. Goodyear against
Emile Lamm was settled by agreement of
counsel, and the decree affirmed that the
patents issued to the successor of the orig
inal Goodyear, deceased, were valid, and
that the compliments who sued on an
alleged infringement We're to recover dam
ages against the defendant, the patent con-
si-ting IN process of making vulcanized
india rubber.
The great case Of J. Z. Richardson against
j. Pinckney Smith, o. H. Brewster, p b.
$. Pinchback and L. j. Souer was yester-