New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-26
THE COURTS.
Iuared states District Court.

Cn1red state. District Court.
The United States District Court has ad-
| iourned until the ensuing Monday. first OF
| April. The Jurors have been discharged 10
| this day.
| United states Circuit Court.
In the case of DAILY against c. S. Sau-
| yiuet, the Injunction applied for is denied
| on the ground that the court is without au-
| rho-itv 10 interfere in State courts.
A new trial has been refused plaintiff in
! the case of ". w. Loud vs. Z. Rigney.
Judgment o. the district court is affirmed
! in the case OF Z. J. Harp against steamer
! Grand Era. ard Robert J. Harp. agent. re-
| covers his claim of St22 l9. The decision.
which is important. viii be alluded 20 in a
| subsequent edition.
In the case OF the Pennsylvania Salt
Manufacturing Company against 5. Men
| delsohn an Injunction was granted 20
| restrain the defendant and associates from
| putting up caEs.ic alcal in air-tight metallic
integuInenIs and from further infringement
OF the letters patent OF the complainants.
| the company, tie same TO cuatinue IN ioCce
until final hearing or further order OF THIS
court.
Court OF Successions.
In the succession OF Musgrove. rule was
| taken or T. b. ! loerte on +. G. Musgrove
| TO show cause why he should not De ap-
| pointed the tutor of his grandchlld. Albert
| E. Musrruve. OF he ground that the family
meeting convened for the purpose o. APP
| pointing a tutor 70 the minor. mas not
| agreed IL their deliberations, the members
| thereof BEN. equally divided between the
| mover. tEt maternal grandfather. and Il.
| g. Musgroye. the paternal grandfather OF
| the minor.
The parties referred 70 the court the mat
ter of deciding between them, and Judge
Duyiyneaud pronounced that. according 10
| the evidence. hotn men were equally hon
est. ard ac1uated only By the motives OF
paternal affection FOR their grandcEild. The
one was a pa-erlal. the other maternal
grandfather On the paternal side the shild
fas his grandmother. Mrs. Musgrove. lady
Of high moral character. refined education,
and very aiectiunate TO him. With his pa
ternal grandfather the minor has the advan-
tage of having TWO affectionate parents 10
take charge OF him. While on the ether side
he would have his grandfather.
The second wife OF the mover is, no doubt.
a very respectable lady. fully as commend
able as Mrs. Musgrove. good mother OF
family and worthy Of the charge which
would devolye on her we're the cOuTtto give
her the tutorship: but can not Lose sight OF
her position as a stranger 20 the child. while.
or the other hand. III giving the preference
| TO the paternal grandfather, the child viii
have. together with the care, kindness and
love of father. bur also that OF a mother
This consideration alone has decided the
court to give preference TO L. 6. Musgrove
for the tutorship OF his minor grandchlld.
Fourth District Court.
In the case % the city against Strauss.
| Jud ge Theard decided that theft could give
| no title. the substance Of the decision being
| as follows:
The petition in this case sets forth that on
| the sixth day OF MAY. IS. |. certificate OF
| Indebtedness a. the city Of New Orleans.
commonly known a. a .'seven-thirty certIi.-
| cate" for the sum OF $40 t9-lt9. while II
| the possession OF al employee in the Office q
| the Administrator OF Public Accounts. being
prepared for issuance. was stolen from said
! office and carried away. That subsequ entiy
| the number ''i45. and date third. which
| anpear UpOr said certificate. were illegally.
| and BY forgery. fraudulently inserted ID
| said certificate. The petitioner asked Tor
writ of seuuestratiop. A writ issued. and
| the certificate was sequesrered IN the hands
| OF Jacob Strauss. broker in this city.
As TO the merits of this case. there can be
| DO dispute. The evidence in the recoI,!
sustains tie allegations in plaintiffs peti-
ton. From the testimony adduced. II ap-
pears that the certificate was stolen from
the Office of the Administrator OF Public
Accounts; thai il had been signed By the
proper officer. but the date and number
were wanting I" complete the same before
il could be issued 10 the party entitled %
receive il. James Fallon: that the same day
Merle sold the certificate 10 Strauss, recelv-
ing >GI5 -. that before strauss purchased
i. the number Il e" and date third, which
now apt-caF II Ihe certificate. had been IN
serted.
Merle has failed 10 show satisfactorily
how he came il possession OF the certificate.
Can the city recover.
Counsel for Strauss contends that the Ger
tihcate. being made payable 20 Faiion ar
bearer is negotiable paper. and transferable
bv delivery: and that he having purchased
in good faith. Tor & valuable consideration.
he is the owner. notwithstanding tie date
and number were wanting.
II Is true that when party puts mo cir
culati0n a negotiable instrument with
blanks for the date. or for the amount 10 be
flied out. and these are afrervard inserted.
third party acquiring in good faith. Tor
valuable consideration. can recover.
But in the present case there Is cert!1-
cate of indebtedness. with the date and
NUN Der wanting. " hich was nos issued or
put Oh the market by the city OF New Or
leans. but was stolen while being prepared
for issuance.
There Is broad distinction between The
two cases. IL the first. the drawer. OF
course. could be made 10 suffer, and nos the
innocent third party. as the fault AMI neg
lect were attributable to him alone. In the
present il is owing 70 no iaches on the part
Of the city. She never issued the certificate
IN question. Il was stolen from her while
in an incomplete condition. with date and
number wanting. the necessary requisites
to make il complete. Theft can give L.
title the soUrc= through which the pre-
tended tile i derived * rendered - i'll
pure by the fact .: theft that no holder O.
tie thing -tol-E can set up title TO the same.
Chalus- & Merle mus bear the consequences
Of dealing with party unknown - them
For these reasons let there be Judgment
in favor OF he city against Strauss. AID II
favor OF Strauss against both Chapu. and
Merle in solid0.
seventh District COurt-WhO Pay. for
that Ca.ke
The condensed opinion OF Judge CoIers
on the liability q common carriers. a. N
the case Of De- Bonr.io V. Steamer s.
Louis. follows:
II Antwerp Belg;lm). George Ratz s
Co. shipped Oh board ot the ship EgieI, OF
the Liverpool ana Mississippi Steamship
COMPANY. fifteen casks of wine. consigned
to Fred Del Bond;o. al New Orleans. The
bill OF lading con-emplates thai the goods
shall he sent forward 10 the port OF LlEer-
pool and he there tTaushipped and ior-
war,ied to their destination on another
vessel of the company, which, in this case,
was the steamship =. Louis
ON arrival a. his port only fourteen
casks were delivered TO the consignee. and
these were il excellent order and condition.
The other one IS accounted for by the fact
that after the vessel Lad been entirely IN
laden. and 10 other freight whatever re-
NAMED in the hold. the portwarden Was
shown the cask lying empty and badly bro
ken on the ballast a. the bottom Of the
sbio. A witness describes it a. smashed"