New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-02-18
THE COURTS.
tinted States District Court.

United States District Court.
A panel of thirty-si1 petit jurors was or
dered to be drawn, ard Messrs. John x
CLAW and Robert Watson, freehOldeL.
were appointed 10 assist II forming Tho
panel.
Not in session. Quite a number Of de
cisions will be rendered to-day.
Superior District tour,.
The case OF Judge Bonner contesting The
Eeat Of Hon. b. j. Lynch. judge Of the
Fourth District Court. absorbed most Vi
Ihe time OF this court today.
second District Court.
In the succession OF Mary Carol. de
ceased wife of john NJ. Shster, Judge
Tissot rendered most exhaustive opinion
Yesterday on question that va. urged by
William Carol, brother OF the DECREASED,
who alleges that the VIII left by his sister
is null and void, an! Of no effect.
Among other causes of nudity put forward
by Carol. he lays great stress ON tho io!'
lowing:
The will states that The said tutriX, be-
ing illiterate. has made her mark Ih-,he
contends. il insufficient, as the civil Code
especially instruCts THAT the testament
should be signed by the testator IL he
declares that he knows not how to sign.
express mention OF his declaration. as also
the cause that binders him from signing.
must be made in the act
The court cites many instances and much
law bearing directly on the point, showing
that this article in the vii. does not lulhil
the requirements of law: that a man can
be iliterate and Yet know how to sign
his name.
BOuvicr's Law Dictionary defines the
word iIIiterate as ''unlettered," which def
nition does not exclude the idea that an
illiterate person could write his name. The
iudge. therefore, ordered that there be
Judgment herein, annulling and canceling
the will Of Mary Carol, passed before Ed
ward Barnett, notary, on the second day OF
MAY, 1860, and decreeing the same TO be
void and OF no effect, ana the opposition Of
John NJ. Shafer to the demand for the ad-
ministratiOn hereof maintained, in so far as
its decree that there is no necessity for an
administration hereof, reserving the rights
Of all parties to such proceedings as they
be entitled to herein tor the protection Of
their interests.
The SUGGESTIONS of Joseph RaynOr, Cuth.
bert II. Slocomb, Eugene Leicher and Mrs
Prosper Rideau have just been opened in
this court
Fourth District Court.
The following important decision was
rendered by Judge Lynch yesterday:
Payne, Huntington a Co, VS.. George
w. Turner.-This action was instituted
by the late commercial firm of Payne,
Huntington & Co. against George w. Tur
ner, a resident of France, for the sum of
$3.50 80, with interest from December -,
1871 The indebtedness Is alleged to he for
moneys and supplies advanced by plaintiffs
during the year 1869, for the cultivation OF
Point Pleasant plantation, the property OF
George w. Turner, situated in Tensas par
- ,l,,,t, ,,.,l
moneys and supplies were furnished at the
solicitation and upon the credit of said
Turner, and upon his promise that the crop
raised upon the plantation during the year
aforesaid would be consigned to said firm |
for sale, and the proceeds applied to the |
payment of those advances and supplies; |
that, notwithstanding said promise. the |
said George w. Turner took possession of |
ali the crop raised upon said plantation |
during said year, and, with the exception |
of two bales of cotton which were con
signed to petitioners, converted the whole
20 his use and benefit, and did not ship or
permit the same to be shipped to plaintiffs
and that, after amicabe demands, the said
Turner refuses to pay
Defendant denies any Indebtedness to
the plaintiffs. He says he is the owner of
the said plantation, but that be did not
cultivate it during the year 1869; that on
the twenty eighth Of December, 1868, he
leased the plantation to his son, Ernest
Turner for one year commencing jam
ary |, 1869, which contract of lease WAS in
writing, and duly recorded in the parish of
Tensas; that the plaintiffs had notice
thereof and with fall knowledge OF the
facts made their advances 10 said lessee.
Defendant goes on to deny in detail every
and fact having any tendency
to show his liability foT the demand of
plaintiffs.
The case was tried before Judge Bonner,
who rendered judgment for plaintiffs. 1t is
now before me on a rule for new trial
taken by defendants counsel.
a written agreement between George w.
Turner and his son, Ernest Turner, is in
evidence. 1t purpOIts to be a lease Of the
plantation above referred to by til" defend
ant to the latter. for and during the year
1869, at rent of $1,000. 1t provides
that the son shall cultivate the
plantation at his own expense. .and IL
be subject to the inspection Of the father,
who was to have the right TO visit and re
main on the place as long as he might deem
bit. The levees were to be kept in good
order, and the buildings were to be re-
paired at the expense OF the lessee, who
was also required to keep a set of books of
plantation expenses. subject TO the inspec-
lion of the lessor. The plantation was not
TO be responsible for any debt or debts con
lracted by the said Ernest Turner.
Mr.. PAYNE, one of the plaintiffs, SAYS in
his testimony George w. Turner came
INTO our office with his son, Ernest Turner,
and spoke to me and ny partners, telling
rs that he came TO ask US to furnish the
plantation what supplies were needed for
Ihe current year. Ii was in the month Of Feb
ruary, believe. We stated to him that we
were not in the habit OF advancing without
cotton in hand; then he said we will not
require much; il Is for the negroes that |
must have something. lie stated in the |
course OF the conversation that the plauta-
lion was to be cultivated by negroes, bat
hat thew could not get along themselves
without being furnished. lie said that hi.
ION would be up there 10 manage the place.
and he wanted us 20 furnish the supplies:
hat it would not be much, and we
concluded to do So. lie referred 10 hi.
axes, but he said he did DOT think we
you'd be called upon to pay. At auv rate
re said, he would leave lis son there, and
whatever his son required he hoped we
would furnish it. His son was present but
ne had nothing to say at all. He remarked
hat he was going TO send his son up there
o Try his hand 10 manage the place. He
'ald his son was young, ard he wanted us
o furnish him, and that he would charge
lls son to make rs lit demand as possible.
)ut what he did require. lie wanted us 10
urnlsh. | never saw Mr.. Ernest Turner
before that time. His father told me he
vas his SON He directed us 20 ill the
'rders of Ernest Turner. We received an
rider from Ernest Turner in which he told
Is that the things he wanted were for him .
elf and not for the plantation. and we re-
used TO I'll the order when he specified
hat it was Tor himself, did not know his
ondition to pay, and did NOT like to credit
i'm. We paid the item of 1921 50 for taxes ,
OF defendant All The items CHARGED her.
we're paid. They consist of things pur
hased for the plantation. such as mules ,
lantatioa supplies. and various other
lings.'