The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1873-07-26

j. l.. Mathews VS.. j. u. Williams.-
"Where there is a discrepancy between
the allegation and the document made
part OF the petition, the latter con-
trolls" Defendant executed his note
for two notes against his father, the
notes, being on their face, years. past
due. The plea of prescription will not
avail defendant to defeat payment of
his voluntary obligation.-Judgne
affirmed.
J. w. Willis vs.. J. w. WansIey.-
Plaintiff chad no right to demand the
nullity of the judgment because the
attorney who acted for him was with
out authority, after permitting that
attorney to continue the litigation and
after taking the chances OF q favorable
judgment in this Court" Judgment
affirmed.
G. II. Morrison VS.. tIournOy & Co.
ct al.-A judgment obtained on il con-
tract that existed prior to the Constitu-
ton of 1868, does not fall within the
provisions of Act No. 40, Acts of 1869.
Article 1872 OF the Constitution sscan
only have effect in the manner and to
the effect provided by law"
t'In forced sales tho forms Of law
must be strictly complied WITH Judg-
gment affirmed.
w. G.. Kennedy VS.. G. ii. Morrison
ct. al.-The transfer by Kennedy TO
Farmer, an attorney at law, Ola suit
pending against Morrison, being
transfer to effect compromise and to
stop litigation, was not the sale of a
litigious right i'll the sense of Article
2l47, r. G. Farmers interposition
must be construed according to the ac-
tuat intention Of the parties.
One ''cannOt keep the fruits of a trans
fer, even though it be the sale of a liti-
gious right, land ask to he restored to the
ofthe thing which he trans
ferrcd." Judgment affirmed.
J. II. WiSner VS.. City of Monroe
The old story-the title OF the Act of
1865 did not embrace all the objects pro-
vided for in the bill. Defendants were
without power to contract. Demand
rejected.
JUSTICE MORGAN
Flonrnoy Il Millsaps VS.. NJ. NJ. Ora
dy, tax collector. For full opinion soc
another part Of paper.I
Gcrspach IL Herring VS.. w. III. Ii.
-Parol evidence was admitted
to prove a promise to pay s per cent
interest. This is q ground to amend
tho Judgment. Interest reduced to 5
per cent, and, as amended, Judgment
affirmed; defendant paying costs be-
low, and appellee costs in this Court.
Jno. Henry Il Co. vs.. McCord Il Co.
-"The remedy of attachment, partic-
ularly as it has been enlarged by re-
cent legislation, is 4 harsh one, and
those who seek relief under it, must
bring Themselves strictly within its
Judgment affirmed.
j. NJ. Jones, and b. l.. Sims vs.. NJ.
NJ. Grady, tax collcctor-{tvo eases
Consolidated. )-Poiicc jurics in aescsi-
ing Il license upon tho Keepers of shops
where liquors are rctaileu, ssarc not re-
'tA iNt''t ~ 'iiTii 'lAilbll tIt' amount
If that cSactea by the state"
1t is Il matter entirely within Tic
discretion of police jurics to say when
he sense OF tho people Of II ward, town,
~ city shall be taken to determine
or not drinking saloons shall
,c licensed. \ failure TO order such
election does not prevent said bodies
rom assessing 4 license.
The court does not discover any want
If equality or uniformity in the licenses
to retailers ofspirituouS liquors,
keepers of GrogshOps, har.rooms, &c
person carrying on the same
business is charged the same siam for
he privilege of doing 500
Injunctions dissolved with "a per
'cnt damages and $50 counsel fees in
'nrl ease; app"lle"s paying all costs.
Thr state rs. }. Farmer and \. Reid.
In Il case ofrapC, proof Of penetration
: sufficient. Several exceptions were
ilCu, termed '!tcchnicalitic1'' by The !
court, nil Of which are ovcrrnlra. Son |