New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-01-30

anu pOlnC out tue pisces marked OUT IN tue
diagram. The accused were not permitted
to attend this inspection of the premises.
The judge a quo stated that the jury were
specially instructed not to converse with
the witness, and the witness was instructed
to make no explanation, but to cOnfine him
self to pointing out appearances as de-
scribed in the same diagram. 1t would re-
suit by Obeying these instructions to the
letter that the witnesses gave testimony IN
the premises out of court, and in the alb
sence of the accused, in the same way
dumb person gave testimony by signs.
The effect OF such pointing out Is as pO-
tent with a jury as if the verification OF fhe
diagram had been enforced with multi
tude of words.
Decree-That the Judgment be reversed,
the verdict set aside, the cause remanded
for new trial
E.. l.. Bodcchtel against r. Frelinghnysen,
Second District Court. Action to reduce
the donation made to the defendant, IN
whose favor the Supreme Court reversed
the judgment.
to A. L. TssOt sustained as to the item OF
$7O4 30.
James L. Lobdell VS.. William II. Bush
nell, Fourth District Court.
Joseph Christen w. X. Bhulman. Seventh
District Court of Orleans.
r. A. Willard, agent, vs. G. Lugenbuhl
and F. Ecrot. This is an appeal taken by
defendant from a judgment of the Sixth
District Court in favorof plaintiff annulllng
the sale Of certain property made by Lugen'
huhl and Ecrot, and diSmissing the excep-
ton that the plaintiff did not disclose in
his petition for whom he was suing as agent.
WHY, j.
The court erred in dismissing the excep-
ton and allowing plaintiff to stand IN
Judgment without disclosing the name OF
the party for whom he was suing.
w. l.. Jurg.elwiez against Louisa 'Jnr-
gielwiez This is an appeal from judg-
ment of the Fifth District Court, rendering
a divorce q cinculo m0trin'Ouii where the
defendant appealed. Held that the judy
ment is nullity. because the defendant
was not cited and did not appear to defend
the suit
Bossier Board of School Directors against
James Graham. Auditor. Rule for contempt
dismissed
MOTION TO DISMISS OvERRULED.
Henry Reveirs against Valentine st.
ArFEAL DISMISSED.
J.B. Michoud vs. Charles Nolan.
JUDGMENT AMENDED.
Dean, Adams & Golf VS. Martin & Co.
George Stewart VS.. Jane Robinson.
The District Courts.
Judge Duvigneaud, of the Second District
Court, yesterday pronounced an opinion
upon the opposition of Mrs. Harte and
others in the succession case of James Pc
terson. where the opponent claims rent of
a portion of the shores of the Mississippi
with the privilege of planting posts. The
Judge ruled upon the following question
connected with the case: Has every one
the right to use the banks of a navi gable
river in any other manner than that pre-
sented by nature
MANY portions of the banks of navi gable
rivers are inaccessible to vessels on account
of natural obstacles. and has in such cases
every one the right to change the nature
of the banks owned by another. SO as TO
create a servitude where none exists! Can
any person plant trees and posts on the
land of another for his special accommodate
tons, and thus create "A servitude where
nature has none intended
Article torty-six, in explaining the nature
of servitude to which banks of navigable
rivers are subject, particuarizes the right
of making vessels fast to the trees which
are there planted and this. it seems is the
extent of the right of the public in this re-
sDect because servitudes which tend to
affect the free use of the property, in case
of doubt as to their extent, or the manner
of using them, are always interpreted in
favor of the owner. Article 1i9. Civil Code.
ANY other Interpretation would be but a
judicial appropriation without due compcr
satiOn.
Therefore. to plant posts on the banks Of
a navigable river is not permitted to every
one by the laws of this State, and a lease
to that effect is not forbidden by section
a nf
Moreover. the aforesaid section would
under no circumstances apply 10 the
lease in question, as the land leased
has been, since March, 1870. within
the corporation of the city of New Orleans.
and was previously within the corporation
of the city of Jefferson.
In the Eighth District Court the jury de-
cided the case of NJ. Cooney against the
Orleans Railroad Company in favor of
plaintiff, giving a verdict tor the full amount
claimed
Plaintiff claimed 500 damages, represent
ing that between November, 1869, and
March, 1871. he was at various times I'M
reasonably detained from reaching his home
by the cars of said company, in consequence
of unnecessary delay by said cars, at the
corner of Toulouse and Dauphine streets,
and that he has frequently been compelled
to get out of the car in which he had passage.
and walk in the rain and mud.
He AYERS that the company starts its
cars with great irregularity, and much
longer intervals than they are bound to do
by law; that said irregularities and delays
have caused him much inconvenience, vexa-
ton. annoyance and loss of time. and he
thinks he has been damaged to the extent
of $500"
Judge Dihbe also decided the case where
Mrs. Moussier sued for the nullity Of judy
ment obtained against her in favor Of Mr..
Cuisine, claiming that she being Il married
woman, could not stand i'll judgment
The court held that Mrs. Moussier, al
though a married woman, was at the time Of
the rendering of the judgment the keeper
of clearinghouse, and therefore being in
law a merchant, could sue and be sued
without authority from her husband.
In another case, plaintiff claimed by
landlord's lien "a privilege on two sewing
machines. seized in the house of defendant,
against HON the landlord had obtained
Judgment on a claim for rent. The court
held that sewing machines were tools Of
trade, and as the law eXempts such ar
ticles from seizure. the landlords lien could
not hold the same for rent.