New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-02-18

count against the Point Pleasant planta
uon. Inc money advanced for the pay
ment OF the tax bill should have beer
placed to Ernest Turner's account. nevel
ordered Payne. Cameron & Co. 70 pay the
tax bill: believe that the plaintiffs paiC
this draft nearly one month before they re
ceived letter from me-
letter TO piaintins from defendant
dated Nice. July 6, 1869, is in evidence
The writer says: when left Louisiana
last winter | was under the impression that
| | had paid The taxes due on my plantation
as | was told b. the sheriff OF the PARISH
| that nothing more would be called for be-
fore next October. Within short time
several notices have been presented TO my
son on The plantation. You will very much
| obIige me il you vii. arrange this business
for me; you will be repaid out OF the pres
ent crop. which, am Cad 70 hear. looks
| very well. Should the crop, however. pc 30
injured as 20 turn ont less than we now an
ticipate. ! viii pay the sum advanced by
you for this purpose early IN November.
at which time expect to be III New O.-
| leans"
The foregoing i. the ma'eria! evi-
hencc adduced for and against She
| demand OF the petitioners in this
| cause. The plaintiffs are merchants of
well known prob.ty and integrity, and one
OF them ,Mr. Payne, says that he nev-!
! heard a word against the character of the
defendant for morality and veracity, and
| he always regarded Mr.. Turner as a hi gil-
toned. honorable gentleman.
a statement dated December I9, 1871.
signed by Ernest Turner. Is in the record.
| 1t was offered IN evidence by plaintiff 5
counsel, but objected to by the defense and
| ruled out by tho court. That statement 1
| decline To take into consideration. as d de-
| cislOn in this matter can be arrived at with
| out any regard 10 that evidence. whether 1t
| be admissible or not.
| There is no doubt that the moneys and
! supplies were furnished 30 the amount al
| legged in plaintiffs petition, and were used
tor and enured to the cultivation Of the
| Point Pleasant plantation, under the man
| agement of Ernest Turner. and the issue
| presented to me to pass upon is simply
/ whether il was the defendant or his son to
| whom the plaintiffs gave credit. and fur.
| nisbed the moneys and supplies in question.
Able and earnest efforts were made
in the argument of this Case by de-
PENDANTS counsel to show that this
action was virtually for the purpose of
compelling George w. Turner to pay the
debt of Finest Turner. and that the &C,
of 1853 expressly tOrbids the reception OF
parole evidence going to show the promise
of one party 10 pay the debt Of another. Il
was also urged by the same counsel that
the firm of Payne. Huntington & Go. had
always kept their acrounts with Ernest
Turner; that their bills were furnished to
him, and that it was only after his t.ildre
TO pay that his maine was erased from the
books of the plaintiffs. and the bills fur
nished by them, and the name OF G. w.
Turner substituted therefor.
There is no allegation in the petition that
the defendant promised 10 pay the debt Of
another, and there being no such allegation.
no attempt was made by parole or other
evidence to prove il. The allegation is that
he himself contracted the debt. for his own
benefit and use, and such being the case,
parOl proof would be sufficient TO prove
that fact. II seems to me that the evidence
of the partners Paine Il Cameron conclu-
sively establish that they furnished their
money and merchandise TO George W.
Turner. and 90 him alone, and that thev
never regarded his son in any other light
than as his manager and agent; that so far
from any express or implied credi: being
given by them to the younger Turner, in
the premises, they expressly and posi- |
lively refused to credit him in even
"a small amount, when he sought the !
same is i'll his individual name, and on his |
personal responsibility. \ legal account |
ability had attached to tire defendant be- |
fore the firm of Payne, cameron Il Co. !
presented their bills 10 his son for payment. |
Such responsibility was created when. after |
having solicited and contracted for the |
moneys and supplies. he or his manager re-
ceived the same from the plaintiffs. That |
was demanded OF the manager |
and refused did not preclude the creditors |
from atterward making a demand on |
George w. Turner. the real and cnly debtGr
The defendant, i. his evidence contra
diets the testimony OF Messrs PAYNE and |
Cameron. This may DC all right, natural
and correct, but when he contradcts his
own testimony, as lie certainl Y does, he Is
not correct, though he may be homes: in his !
and SUCH contradictory state
nents can not dissipate or even weaken
the evidence OF the plaintiffs. He says. in |
his evidence given at Nice. Il never ordered
Payne. Cameron N Co. to pay the tax bill;
| believe that the plaintiffs paid this draft
nearly one month before they received g.
letter from me-" In the letter of the sixth
of July TO plaintiffs, he says, in speaking Of
the demand made on him for taxes. You
will very much obiige me Il you will ar
range this business for me-" Here is
glazing contradiction. And again, he says,
You will be repaid out Of the present
crop" Out of what crop, The crop
of the lessee, What right had be to
pay his debts out Of the crop OF his
1on, if the latter was the lessee Of Point
Pleasant plantation at a rent Of 5000
for that year! That the plaintiffs had an
ticipated his instructions in regard to the |
payment of bis tax bill does not show that
such instructions were not given. 1t shows
that the firm was dealing with him, and
caring for his interests while he was away
n Italy. The defendant lays great stress
81 his contract Of lease. and attributes tc
himself an entire immunity from RESPONSE
oiIlty because Of that instrument. This
ease was not known to the plaintiffs. But
Z
ease, this would not prevent the defendant
from being responsible for moneys and sup
llies ordered and solicited by and furnished
% him, whether he atterward appropriated
hem 10 himself or gave them to another
person. Ii 1t be true, as the father testtieg,
hat he and his son were acting toward each !
)ther as lessor and lessee: that the former
gave the latter the use of the plantation for
me year for $1,000, as though they were
strangers dealing with each other, what
means the promise, written al Nice, 70 paw
lis creditors out of the crop Of q tenant
md lessee, over which he swears he had no
ontrol, being entitled only to his rent !
' arious interesting legal ques ions were at
emptcd 30 be engrafttu upon this case !
Turing the argument of il by the
earned counsel OF each party ! am
# opinion that the case presents Onlv
question of fact and that ques
ion once settled, the legal results growing |
nut OF II are easily seen. Plaintiffs have
established the allegations OF their petition
eyond doubt. | have carefully and dill
emily examined the case, and such ex-
mlnatiOn has convinced me Of the right OF
Plaintiffs to recover. concur in the opinion
nd Judgment rendered by Judge Bonner.
Who tried this case. His judgment is. in
ny opinion, III conformity with the law and
he evidence. see no reason to .!antau
rial.
Let the rule be dismissed.
Fifth District Courf.