New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-04-23
COURT RECORD.
TUESDAY, APRIL 81. 1873.
SuperiOF District Court.

:,.,,b Hau,s Moses Kats and Jean Berrtie.-
kUie for contempt Ordered thar rule be made al
EUlute; Jean BeiIeTe condemned to siY hours IN
lrisouH,t nj and fine of S!H, aud 20 remain .H.'
NTlsoutG till fine 10 pal'. - =
state of Louisiana vs. Edward Bootn.-RH.e
ttken hv defendant TO dissolve the mi .nction not
maintained. The matter cont aimed IN the lule was
s0nsid, red by the court as ar answer and the IN
,Uuciion made perpetual. Notion made by de.
tenants counsel for new trial OverTu ed Motion
FOR an appeal by defendants counsel allowed, with
hnUd at 5000 Teturnable first MOnTay of May.
Motion By counsel for the State that the sheriff be
ordered to enforce the writ objected 10 by counsel
for defense and hearing asked Fixed FOX the
Crescent City Live Stock landing and Slaughter.
house Conpauy Lucen Laberre-PettioI al
reyes defendant has slaughtered 1929 head OF
cattle and has not Ge'eled the heads, horns end
et 20 pia ntifl, and pray for an il Junction. ln'
.uHcti,n Issued against lihs dettndant. and in
eight o.hef similar suits against different dt .rud
First District Court.
State vs. Felix Breen. larcenv.-EyiieGce OF pre-.
day IL Parish Prison.
State VS.. james Giennan, Lar euy.-SeHtence one
Gay in Pa ish Prison.
State vs. James Aasustin, assault and battery
Plea Of guilty and remanded for sentence.
State Gay ano and Rosa Rosa.-Arson. On
Srial. Jury impaueed and case Tor State opened
Attachments were ordered tor number OF
Jurors who were guilty of contempt IN not sp-
The grand fury was instructed 20 .rca!:e into
tie pT2tice OF recorders courts.
Fourth District Court.
Nathan Ftibelman VS.. s. B. Packard eli ai.-Pet'.
soE alleges plaintiffs stock OF goods il Mad son
parish unlawtuiiy seized by defendant in Val.
Sntine o. Vs. Drgfus, IN bankruptcy.
Moses Feibelman and George Vot lkeT vs. $. J..
Packard ct al-same ground OF action.
Henry Smith VS.. }. &. Harris CO-On the
former trial OF this plaintiff offered evi-
cit to show that he had transferred or Off red
20 Transfer his right, lite and interest in and to
the lease IN question TO The defendants prior 10
the ms tuition of this suit. He relied on the con
tract of sale Of the drug store which he insisted
did Obliy9fr him transfer his lease AT all
Harris Co. The court then held that as the
plaintiff had not complied with his obligation IN
transferring the lease he could not recover. and
Judgment was rendered in favor of defendants. A
new trial was granted and the evidence of Dr..
Smith taken thereat shows that he tTaDsterTtd
sis lease to plaintiffs the fourth of September.
1872, just fort y.Gve DAYS before tn suit WAS filed
ana went on that day to tie office OF Swarbllck |.
90. TO meet Mr.. Taylor, one of the defendants, in
order TO tttect the delivery to the latter OF the
ease after transfer. That TAYLOR, who had made
an appoin tmeut with Smith at the place and time
aforesaid tailed to keep his appointment The
plaintiff sweHts that prior to said fourth of Sep
Jembsr he offered TO make a transfer of the lease
so Mr.. Taylor. who refused accept 10. Mr.. Ward,
SHr lessor WI ling to transfer he lease 10 de
FenGauts. Their is, therefore, 10 va id defense to
she demand of plant Il.
Let the rule to SEE aside The sequestratIOn here.
"a be discharged. let there be Judgment in favor
of plaintiff. henry Smith, and against G Harris
sind John u Taylor IN sohdo, and ~ members of
she firm Of J. C. Harris Co., for the sum of $500,
with i've per cent interest per annum from Sep,
& mber 1, 1872, with IS 80 cost of protest, and
ross count and the endoI's privilege upon the
drag store referItd 10 in plaintiffs petition.
Fifth District Court.
a. Marchaud John MOylan, Theodore Ma
gInnis interN enOT,-Sut on note of hand of + 1000
secured by special mortgage. lnterveuOr had
placed the note with Vosip Liyaudais for collec
son; they paid him $3.50 il. and pledged It
with other parties after maturity. Plaintiff be-
came the possessOr of the note with other pledges.
The title in Maginnis was not divested Murray
VI. Lardner, Wall, 2l0; Andrews vs. Pond - Pet.
80 Sweeney vs.: Raster Wall, I66
As tc the right OF Maginnis to the mote in con.
frOveTsy zee, also, Wheeler Guild, % Pickering,
page 545; Clarke 5 Courtney, u Conn, 5lI; 3
Ste son vs.. StackhOuse. | l.. r., l2l, in which the
court held that where the note overdue wien
she pledge received it, he in no better cOndi
Sion than the pledger. MaSinnis never gave any
title to Voisin Livaudais. nor had he given them
authority to pledge the note They tr7nscended
sheiT authority, under circumstances which
amounted TO constructive notice to all persons
dealing with them, and, consequently, could con
fer no title to the Pledge, Mr.. Wesenbach. The |
Intervention of Magnnis is, Therefore, sustaint d.
and the note declared 10 belong to him. The call |
in warranty will be dismissed and judgment rem |
deIed in favor Of The said ntervenOr against John
hoylan, win recognition of the mortgage on the |
property dc crihed i'll the act of January g. 1871,
as prayed for N the lntervenors petition. "uh |
e psts.
s ate eV rel John H. Collins vs.. Keeper of Parish |
Puson.-Relator AYERS that on the seventh Of DC I
sOber 1872 he was committed to the Parish Prison
en- commitment issued by +. J. Ellis, Judge of the
sixth Jud Cia District Court of the parish of Tan
= pahOa ordering the REALTORS cOmmIttal to the
Parish Prison On "a charge of murder without bal;
further ordering that Collins be detained until re
gluired by the proper authorities of Tangipahoa.
RelatOr aNerred that the commitment not
udiCial III its character, nor il issued either
ander the seal or signature of any judge, justice
or court recognized by tie laws of the State, that
Raid commitment does not recite that any sentence
Ell conviction or decree of court exists against pc
tltioner or that he is charged upon the oath of any
person with having committed any crime Known
10 the laws of the state, etc.
Continued on motion of Attorney Genera