New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-11-22
COURT RECORD,
SHSDAf. NOVEMBER q. !s9Re
Superior Ois,rict Gsurss

The defense set up principally is that the
cOnstitutionality OF tie act was settled in
Shea VS.. Taylor, decided by the Supreme
Court, in which the State interviewed.
First District Court.
ARRAIGNED.
Bribery and attempting to hribs Wit
ness-Ric hard Evans, Walter Wilcox, Wal
ter II. Rogers, Marx Elkin. Plea OF not
guilty.
Larceny-Laura Dixon. Plea of 10. gull.
ty. Dan Ulrich. Plea of guilty.
Assault nv wiltully shooting at-Thonas
Gordon. Plea of guilty Of assault.
DISCHARGED.
State VS.. James Hickey-Applicasion for
a writ of habeas corpus. Writ maintained
and prisoner discharged.
BONDS FORTIFIED
State vs.. Frank Jones-Assauls with d
dangerous weapon. The accused not being
produced by his hOpdsman. Alexander
Robert, the bond OF $500 was declared toc-
feited.
State VS.. A. G. CarI!llon-Horse stealing.
The accused not being produced by his
bondsman, l.. {. Alexander, the bond OF
$3.50 was declared forfeited.
NoLLE PROsEQUI ENTERED
Assault and battery-Mike Hennes.y
John KUfner, Fred F.egman: larce0y-John
Butuev.
eESTENCHH.
State vs.. Annie yohnson-N slaughter
Five years in the Penltentiar.
VERDICT.
State ve. Thomas A. Wharson-Wcuuai-
ing less than may hem: not guilty.
Fourth District Couss.
II. Baquie VS.. Lorenzs NJ. YrepAu, his
acknowledgement of divorce.
Z. Freissinier VS.. Hamburg and American
Packet Company.-Maudamus refused.
Fifth District CouYte
Judge Cullom has rendered the folio y in 9
decisions:
Tumoine vs.. d. 81. g. Rushe..-Excep,ion
that plaintiff had 10 standing il court. NOT
having paid his taxes
Judge Sullom said he ha0 considered the
statute under which the exception was
taken. 1t was unconstitutional. and had
not the shadow OF authority il K. The
courts were open to &lis even the Siles:
MSletactOr.
In theory, as LEAST, no perils coald chase
him within their walls, except by due pro-
cess Of law. after selng duly notified 20
answer.
This act PROPOSES 60 give 80 the Auditor
powers of a judicial nature which belong
exclusively to The courts. SJ purpoIts 80
give him the authority to outlaw every de-
linGuent taxpayer in the State, aud that,
too without a hearing. This. in effect,
would render the Auditor immaculate, and
place him far above the laws which created
him. Far too much of tits has been toler-
ated already. The act IS odioGs, and dar-
ing insult to the intelligence Of courts aud
OF an oppressed people. Exception over
ruled.
j. g. Camors L Go. VS.. the People. 70
eurance Company.-This suit is brought to
annul settlement made between Joseph
Borzone, party insured, and the Peoples
Insurance Company, and to recover OF the
company in soldo the sum of S251l 81 and
interest thereon FROM Che thirteenth day OF
May, 4. ID. 1873. with costs. For the pup
poses OF this exception, which sets up Ie
cause OF action disclosed 10y plaintiffs petit
ton, the allegations thsreos are taken as
true. II appears therefIom that the COM
pany had insured HorZnnes bakery, gre
Gerry and furniture for $1,000, The property
thus insured was destroyed by fire on the
morning of the twenty first of April last
and the amount of the policy tbereupon be-
came eXigible. The company was in pos
session of all the necessary information.
Borzone owed the plaintiff s257i s. for -four
furnished his bakery. Soon after the fire
he interviewed the plaintiff, acknowledging
his indebtedness, and gave plaintiff an or
der on the Peoples Insurance Company,
dated April 81, 1873, directing the company
20 pay il in part payment OF the sum due
the policy he had taken out. The order is
annexed 10 the petition and made
. part OF ic. Plalutih went 10 she
office 81 the company o0 the day
the order was given. with Gorzone,
who verified his signature TO she order or
draft. The company then and declared to
plaintiff that if anything should be found
10 be due on the policy to BorzOne. they
would pay it over to Che holders CT the
drafts or orders, several of whom presented
their orders given 10y him simultaneously.
These drafts or orders were left with the
company until q short time before II 81
tected compromise of the sum due under
the policy with Eorzone, when they Pc
surntd them to she several holders and
owners thereof. The petitioners allege that
the company worked oil the fears of Sor-
zone, taking advantage OF his necessities 10
vxtort from him an abandonment OF his
legal rights. and forced him to a cOmprOml e
which it dictated, and finally paid HIM Only
$1,000, instead of $1,000, which they ai.ege
they can prove was really due him. They
allege that the detention OF the drafts, and
tho promise to pay them, if on settlement
il wore found that the company was in
Ifebted 20 Horzone, necessitated a tar settle
mene and the payment of the drafts or OF
ers according to the company's uAdertak-
no. That it has failed to do SO.
Counsel for the company maintained ar
yusniO that the company never accepted
he draft sued Oh. and that not having
iore so, was under no legal obligation to
pay even such proportion thereof as might
Otherwise have been due to plaintiffs: that
there being no written evidence OF us az
ceptance OF the draft sued on, no parole
evidence was admissible to prove the
promise to pay, because il was the debt OF
a third party. This objection IS evidently
as the acceptance OF an order 10
pay over money due the drawer TO the
holder thereof is certainly not Promise 70
pay the debt 10 a third person. Sce Grow
ELL VS.. Van Bibbcr, is Ann. SO. Every
principle of justice requires that the custo-
liam OF moneys should obey the legal Or
.sers OF those for whom he holds them.
As to the first objection, to wit that |
there was no legal acceptance of the order
Or draft sued. because nothing to that effect |
IS in writing, 1t Is only necessity to cite the |
aw which appears 10 control such issues, |
n answer TO the objection. The usual |
way of accepting is by writing the word |
accepted on the face OF the bill, and sign 4
ng the acceptor's name but there is no |
precise formula or method which IS neces-
.ary to constitute good acceptance. 1t
seems T. be enough if it IS substantially |
I distinct promise TO pay bill according |
% its terms, whether it be in writing upon I
he bill or upon separate paper. OF eS |
payol." Par. on Contracts, page 2tio !
He cites Saiqlee We. Heering, Bling. 40, |
Is bore it was held shat 3Sroi acceptance |
" IL sufficient, and also che case Of Ward IS.
Allen ; Met. par. -, where OIL having !
seen Ssad to the airaves. he said il was coz |
,sc. and should be paid, ehs couGs held that
-, n c,fT 9prpllsa71PS lie refers :