New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-04-15
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, APRIL II, 1873.
&econA nsfFics Court

|
| included in the inventory. Hearing on ex-
| ceptions to rule. The policies were for the
| benefit of Hearings wife, children ana
| brother-in-law. 1t was gift to them, ana
complete when the policies were issued. II
| is settled principle OF law that man mas
| an insurable interest in his life.
In the Supreme Court of PEI nsylVanla
! Judge Shars wood said: For myself. can
| see no reason why man having an Insura
| BILE interest may not insure 1t and present
| the policy as a gift TO friend; and II such
| an agreement to give be made at the very
| time of the contract, why may not the pol
| lev be made at once in the name OF the
| dOnee, the whole transaction being bona
| fide-no fraud being intended on the com
| pany!'
charged.
James McCracken, administrator, vs.
James Madison Wells.-The rule taken
herein on the seventh of March, 1873, by
plaintiffs counsel, requiring w. Z. Harper,
sheriff to show cause why he should not
seize the rents of the property seized IN THIS
suit, having been tried before me, received
thereafter my careful examination and CON
sideratiOn, am of opinion that sale only
can dissolve the lease held by Henry Abel
The seizure can not work the legal result
attributed to it by plaintiffs counsel. Rule
discharged.
Fifth District Court.
Jesse X. Bell VS.. Thomas p. Leathers.-
The defendant in this case sued the plain
tiff August %, 1871, and obtained an at
tachment on the customary affidavit that
the defendant was about to leave the State
This suit is for damages. The court cited
on the question the following authorities:
| 3R.. D. Il; r, 3S7; An, IA; 8 A, II; -
A.. 332: 10 An, 372; Is A., 42l and 625, and
Is A 252. In all these, it will be found
| that it was held to be incumbent on the
plaintiff to show the absence of probable
| cause for the acts complained OF. In this
| case the proof is satisfactory on this point
| Mr.. Bell was shown to be almost entirely
| free from debt. with fortune that would
| have paid thirty or forty times as much as
| he owed Captain Leathers. He had not
sold any part of his property, norris it shown
| that he ever proposed TO do so.
In the Fourth Wendell reports, malice is
| defined to be IAN imputation of law from
the false and injurious nature of the
| charge" In a late case decided by our
| Supreme Court, to wit: Louis Charles Per-
ret VS.. the New Orleans Times, and in the
more early case OF Miller VS.. Holsteid, Is
L., $3.50, it was held that action of SANDER
NAV be maintained without proving dam
| ages 1t is impossible for witnesses to COM
| pute in money the injury done to the feel
| ings and pride of gentleman whose char
| acter is pure and unimpeachable. Such
was the ruling of this court in the case of
Louis Stern VS.. Philip Hoelzel, lately de-
| cided.
The evidence disclOses some malice on
the one hand and some injury to feelings
| on the other which, under the law and the
| light of precedent, make it imperative on
| the court to award damages for attorney s
| fees in the sum of two hundred and fifty
dollars, with costs Of these proceedings.
Sixth District Court.
Schmidt & Zeigler VS.. NJ. j. Goubert,
| Margaret Smell, intervenor.-Mrs Margaret
| Smell, defendants wife. intervenes and
| claims the property attached as beng her
| Own, exhibiting as her title thereto nOta-
rial transfer made to her by her husband,
| in partial satisfaction of Judgment OBJ
| tanned by her against him in the Fourth
| District Court on the fourth Of January
! last.
An examination of the record upon which
| she relies shows that she instituted her
suit against her husband before the Seventh
| District Court. in December, 1872; that, IN
| der the law organizing the Superior District
| Court, the suit was transferred to the
| Fourth District Court on the seventeenth
| of December; that on the same day Judg-
| ment by default was taken. which was con
1
| January, 1873: that on that day defendant
| appeared in conrt in person and waived
the delays for the signing of the Judgment
herein rendered. and also waived an appeal
| therefrom and consented to the signing CT
| said Judgment
| The question is whether Judgment thYs
obtained and executed is recognized by the
law as against third persons, creditors OF
| the husband at the time Of its rendition.
Article 1927, Criminal Code, provides that
separation of property must be petitioned
for and ordered by d court OF justice after
hearing all parties. Ii can IN no case be
referred to arbitration. Every voluntary
separation of property is null, both az re,
spects third persons, and the husband ana
wife between themselves.
This article has been held to impose upon
the judge the duty to require such evidence
of the facts alleged as is sufficient to satisfy
| his mind of the parties. A. G30. 1t con
templates serious litigation between the
parties; contest by the defendant, and
| testimony taken cOntradictOrily in support
of the demand, not the loose and meagre
evidence presented in some cases. nor the
general. sweeping and exaggerated declara-
lions of witness. in others, made CT pdte
and frequently out of the presence OF the
judge.
The testimony Of the defendant, Gum
bert, shows that there was no necessity for
suit of his wife His indebtness amounts
to about 5000, including the claim Of the
plaintiffs, which is over $500. He was no,
| pressed by his creditors. The evidence is
on the contrary, that he was notthreatened
with suits, and that his friends were will
ing to give him credit. There was as little
necessity for the unseemly haste with which
| the proceedings were conducted.
Judgment tor plaintiffs. Intervention dis
missed
United SIntcs Circnit Court.
The following is the decree in the chan
Gerry suit OF Henry j. Gardner & Peter j.
Butler vs.. the New Orleans, Mobile and
Texas Railroad Company:
This cause was submitted to the court
| upon the bill, exhibits, statutes ard Ordi
nancns relative to the said corporation ot
the New Orleans, Mobile and Texas Rail
| road Company. in the States of Tennessee,
! Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas
and ordinances in New Orleans and Mobile
and the answer OF the defendant rs Il
which there is NJ replication. and solicitors
| for the rvmplaiiarts and defendants con
| senting 10 the suhmizzio
The court having considered tde pleading;
and process in the cause, proceeds to de
| clare and decree as follows:
The New Orleans, Mobile and Texas rail
road corporation was organized under the
name Of the New Orleans, Mobile anG
| Chattanooga Company, to locate. construct
| and TO maintain a continuous line OF rail
road from the city Of Chattanooga. in Ten
nessee. to the city of Mobile, in Alabama
and from thence to the city OF New Orleans
10 Louisiana, and from the said city OF New
Orleans. through the State Of Louisiana
into the interior OF the State OF Texas
Powers. franchises and privileges wcr,
granted to said company by the States anC
| cities aforesaid. along the route OF SAID rail
| fill tp.,-
the statutes of the Legislatures Of the saC
several States and the ordinances OF tht