New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-12-07
THE COURTS.
supreme Court.

The rule for contempt, taken Wy AltoII
v.-, General Belden, on the information OF
Eeorge II. Bovee, against Judge Llmcre ana
y r Manning. clerk Of the ElghtA D.stEc'
Tour+. came up yesterday morning before
this tribunal.
BV agreement between MIR. w. ". h!ng'
oF canHstI for Judge LlmOre anG Ar. JOhn
- Trbo rcnreRents Mr. B0yec, the case
was continued until this morning, az eleven
o,clook
Third District Court
TTrsin Dellande vs. widow ChaCchon.-
In tTis case Judge Monroe has rendered the
+aIInT,,inS irterestiuq opin:oD:
TIia is 4 eIlit bv q lessee for rent Of Ger
tain nrerpises situated Ia the city Of New
Orleans, for the two months ending July
ard August s. 1872. and was begun in the
In,Tar, rn1rt nv the provisional seizure Of the
Iomvahle cff.ecrz found on the premises
Ieaeed
defendant rieads the general issue, ana
esvnc;ofIv denies that the effects stiZ"d are
1iaTIe To such seizure. claiming that they DO
hot amount in yalue u tie sum Of Sh9o, ana
az 60 tbc art No, 50. approved April q, 1872
Ind entitled IAN act to amend article ga
- 1F the Code of Practice
The lessor has q right q pledge 10 thc
movable property Of the lessee found u the
premises leased, ana under certain clrGuh,
stances on that Of sub-teLants ana tniIu
persons. and in the exercise OF th&t IighC
NAV seize said property ana cause y ~ "
cold to satisfy his claim for rent.
The articles exempted from tnIs nsht OF
pledge and seizure are espCciallY ehtlliltI-
ated in article 2105 Civil C0de, Whtch, as u
tbie exemption, reads as follows, to vii;
But the lessee snail be entitled to retain
out Of the property, subjected by law 70 me
lessons privilege, his clothes ana l!heh anu
those of his wife and family, his oed, 0eG-
ding and bedBtead, and these OF ms VIE
and family, bis arms ant mllltafy accouIio-
ments. and the tools and instruments nee
essary for the exercise Of his trade or pro-
fassi0n, by which he gains MS living anu
that of his wife and family
Such in substance is the law as IT $1,000
previous to the passage OF act NO 81 f5i!e4
On by the defendants as to the rights WElch
the lessor had for the payment OF MS rem,
and as to the exemptions IN favor o. INC
lessee, and 1t now remains 70 20 o01T1
by this court whether this law has Deen re-
peaIed or abrOgated by the act referred 70
1t has been avowed that ln&sm1en a. Clie
act relied on by defendant mas ioi lcS o.
iect the amendment OF act NO. ot4 OF the
Code Of Practice, and eXempts rom seizure y
certain articles not enumerated III 'li1 ar
ncies Oh me OlE4I Soue, "poHa ~ +t1a+
TIL relles, that there Is cohHLci' on
IN such cases the provisions VI INC No"o u
Fracuce must govern J., .,,i. or,,,,,,,e,,+
There are Two answers W IllIn "i + ''''i u y
however, Whlch appear S S IT, Count has
Inc tacJ Is, thaU tne ga ~
DECIDED that the provision " ~ 800 80 "
Pracuce contained ~ aftlcIo ~,
traFy 10 ana FepuSnaiV W Ia ,,ii rtca
&rJlcie ~o'5 U w ~" oouo, a,,+iaIa .5-05
corresponds WIN lA3 PLGssH' a.
except III ne 2a[SLclI"1 IL - ~ 49,
IN Uhe Slfli I0a9' % e. ~! rr,ani
article 300 gave tne lessor, loF she pay lilIC
OF ms REM, il2hI " pleuse - GLo -
AFFECTS OF the lessee Iouhd Oh Ilo PIoisIi9;,S
leased, ID pfeclSeiy tne SAM ot+;, 10
Wn!ch IhaI IlSnU y ~" III = 4 49,, g ~,
2'V3. ArtlGie ga o. inc (o4e " y
contained inc ptoTisIon "S tN"o 100 ~ 80
Goes now; U1aC 10 se4 o Sa rs, ~
the tools alq instruments i5ecosS"i 10 ~
exercise o. Uho tIdue * ptoAoSS'oIi - "i''oii
the deoTof gains Ily n.y. ,a,, .o,,4,:,od
ana me acI o. .APiI - ~
the PROVISION 10 o6 Aounu ~ " - pr+;on
now Hdt ~ eaSo tnS 49, ~,
should contain any provision contrary l2iS or
Iepngn@3hI 70 tnoso ~ Sl9 Ci'ii III ,n.
I@lISi eh"li u - - ~ "a
pealeo ana lHeIoOy aineN''0'' - ''''''
kpecg'
Inc questlou was I'LeStLLeu ~ UHG -
preme Court in the case OF Parker VS.. SLACK,
weather, n. y, p w; In that case ~
was decided that tue TOOLS OF me deI@huaht
were subject to the lessons right, and that
Art. 6ii, 9. F., prohibiting the shenh from
Selling them, did not apply TO sHGn cases,
but only debt Of hel1 iaciaS' IoF Heoo "hGio
no privileges existed independent OF the
Judgment And II was not untli iS1S tnaL
such property was exempted from me .eS'
sor's claim, and then not by virtue o. , Art.
Gii, {. p but by intent 0! an act o. 's'!'
y. Us, NO. 70
Inc second answer ~ Ih@S 81 ~ I ,','',
Lle F%IIo 5 Y art.Ins M an4 ,i.,5 II
are 70 99 ISInu ~ a. ;n}F "a 5o o,f;los
the W.. - G3o ~ ,rI,iof M
ne-llS I&GtS ~ ' ~ 9 a. lto+,1+ i - ho
iotl,o o. aI;Sa1 "a, d;,,;ty Lrith tat law
,i III, IT 4 Ia c3+,,ad tnoathar
gu" i StT! 81 ''s AS 30z ." .1} An NJ
rha ,;ovr - tbo 49, rap d3riny tba anun-
:tnI S W fbe o ,fS no;ta raised nnnecas.
sorv for the reasons above giyen. it is or
Jarad tIat M indr,nant. M tIe lower. cnurt
Fourth District COrt.
m ! NJ Ronner tool, his seat ~ iudoe
of rbis CONT Yesterday morning.
TTnon talIino lis se9f he ordered the min.
,1fe rIerls to read bis commission and oath
~ office. and the business of the court com
!,