New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-01-22
THE COURTS.
United States CiFcuit Court.

THE COURTS.
United States Circuit Court.
The grand jury were in session all OF
yesterday morning, but made no return te
the court; whereupon they were discharged
until Thursday.
A few unimpOrtant cases were disposed
| of.
Supreme Court.
Appeals from courts in the country par
| ishes are now absorbing the entire time OF
this court. No decisions rendered yester.
day.
Superior District Court.
In the case of the State of Louisiana ex
| rel. Attorney General vs.. Charles Clinton,
Auditor, and A. Dubuclet, Treasurer, Gen
eral George A. Sheridan has filed a petition
for Intervention, alleging that he has a legal
interest in this suit to the amount OF
| $4,000, arising from the fact that he is the
| legal holder of twenty bonds issued by the
| State of Louisiana, for the sum OF $500
each, dated and issued in March, 1870, hav-
| ing five years to run, with interest at eight
| per cent per anuum. etc. General Sheridan
| AYERS that the injunction issued in this case
| in coptravention of the rules of court and
| of the Code of Practice, and without evi,
| dence or bond.
That the Attorney General is without
| power, in virtue OF his office, to bring the
1
| government is without lawful power to
enjoin and regulate the executive and
| legislative departments in matters of pub
lie office in the manner attempted to be
| done in this case.
Petitioner prays that after due legal pro
| ceedings the injunction be dissolved, SO far
as the levee bonds are concerned, and that
| as to said bonds the suit be dismissed.
Second District Court.
| In the case of the succession of d. E.
| Twiggs, submitted for adjudication, for the
reasons orally assigned, Judge Tissot has
| ordered that E. Morel be appointed to insti-
| tute proceedings for the destitutiOn of
Abraham c. Meyers, executor of the estate
| of ID. E. Twiggs, deceased. And it is
| further ordered that Samuel p. Blank, Esq,
| be appointed curator ad hoe to represent
! the said A. c. Meyers.
The SUGGESTIONS Of Joseph Dudenhotfer,
Jr, John Doell, Baptiste Hector and Will
liam McCulloch have been opened in this
court.
Fourth District Court.
In the case of Joseph j. Garcia vs.. Ada
Bell, Judge Lynch has rendered judgment
in favor of defendant. Plaintiff instituted
suit for the sum of $65S 55, the price of ma
terals which he alleged he had furnished
to her for the construction of an extension
to her house, corner of Bienville aud IRENE
streets, in this city.
Mrs. A. D. Sinnott vs. E. E. Morgan-In
this case Judge Lynch has rendered
decision substantially as follows:
The defendant rented the premises, No.
I47 CustOmhOuse street, and occupied it as
a drug store from 1913 to 1871. Two leases
are in evidence, one dated June 3, 1851, and
the other NOvem Der "a, 1870.
The former contains clause binding the
lessee to deliver up the premises at the ex
piratiOn of the lease, with all the fasten-
ings and appurtenances in good order. De-
tendant, in October, 1871, evacuated the
premises, taking with him the shelves,
counters and fixtures which he had put
there in 1849. The plaintiff claimed the
fixtures and had them sequestered. She
has brought this action to recover them or
their value, which is alleged to be $1,000
1t is in evidence that when the defend
ant took possession Of the house he found
it destitute of all the appliances necessary
to a retail drug store, and he supplied them.
They cost him $3.50. He left the premises
in a better condition than they were in
when he took possession. Were the articles
taken away Improvements" within the
legal provisions of the term?
| am clearly of opinion that they were
not They are strictly utensils and apph-
ances indispensable to a druggist; they
were purchased and placed there by the
lessee. They were not permanently en-
grated on the structure, and their removal
did not njure the premises. The improve
ments which were permanent the defendant
did not remove. The fixtures removed
were the property of the defendant, and it
is therefore ordered that there be judgment
in his favor with costs.
Fifth District Court.
Mrs. Diana Hulsman VS.. Teutonia Insur-
ance COmpany.-A decision was delivered
in this case, in which plaintiffs claim was
dismissed on exceptions.
A policy of insurance to the amount of
$4,000 was taken out by plaintiff on property
in the saloon situated on the southeast cor
ner of Canal and Liberty streets. The
policy recites that the company will make
good such loss or damage as may happen
by fire during one year from its date.
1t is shown that on the first of August,
1872. the house occupied by plaintiff was
totally destroyed by fire; that the greater
part of her fixtures and stock was also de-
stroyed, and the balance SO injured as to be
of little or no value. The remaining stock
and fixtures were taken charge of by the
company, and held until it was duly ap-
praised aud turned over to her. The ap-
praisement amounted to $207 IS. The fur
niture was turned over TO plaintiff at a
valuation of $500.
Plaintiff AYERS that the property was
worth $780, and that the company bound
itself to pay $4,000 of that loss. She shows
an actual loss of 1892 %, for which judg
ment is asked. She also claims $1,000 dam
ages for the injury sustained by her in con-
sequence of the refusal of the company to
pay her the said $I992 25, and for the coun-
sci fees paid by her in liquidating this
claim. Plaintiff claims S2j0O as the actual
loss, deducting acknowledged credits for
S597 Is, and leaving the smount claimed
1892 25.
We think it was competent for the hus-
band of plaintiff to make the affidavit Of
loss as required by the policy. Article l07
of the Code of Practice gives 60 husbands
the control Of the persona! and pecuuiary
actions of their wives.
Defendants urge varioas grounds of ex-
ception. which were maintained by the
court.