New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-05-20
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, MAY 19, 1873.
Supreme Court.

Margot ct all rom Second JUDICIAL District. We
unable to discover that the accidental destrue.
ton of the boat by fire is attributable 10 the iault
Of the defendapts Judgment affirmed.
No 1875 Succession Of Marietta Dubreuil-From
Second D ssIict Court Of Orleans. Judgment
No. 216a. Miguel Gonero de Lizard vs. New Or
leans Canal and Banking Company, appellant.
From Fourth District Court of Orleans verdict
Nc. 4ssI. J. NJ Catallero VS.. Judge of the Second
District Court.-Wrt OF prohiution refused
No. 1870. Charles J. ODonnsll VS.; william Dur
bridge, appellant--From the Fifth District Court
of Orleans. judgment affirmed
No. 4657. Merchants Mutual Insurance Company
vs. Samuel JamsOn. appellant.-FiOm the sixth
No. 1851 A Tore L Co. VS.. Thiele Seller \ Co.:
appt llante-From the Seventh District Court OF
Orleans. Judgment reversed
peliaute-FIom the Sixth district Court Of Or
leans. Judgment reversed. Justices TaiaierIo
and Morgan dissenting.
BIZ JCsTICE TALIAPEkRo.
No. 1919 Ellison. Greevy L Emily vs; Jules Schnei-
der II al. appellants-From Fourth District Court
Of Orleans. Judgment affirmed.
No $50 Same We. same-Judgment afnrmed
Nc. lC96. State ex rel. Trustees Of Straight Uni
vtrsity vs. James Graham, Auditor Appellant
The act of March g, 1870, appropriated s35 goo to
the university. The Eighth District Court granted
a mandamus on the Auditor to Issue the warrants.
He pleaded the constitutional prohibition to the
legislation forhidding appropriations Tor any pr
Vate school. The Stra gut University IS not pup
lie institution of learning Dartmouth College case.
Wheat 635. Judgment reversed.
No. 1891. Tabany Annoy. appellants, VS.. !. r:
Thieneman.-,FIom the Fourth district Court OF
Orleans. Judgment affirmed
No. 1852. Succession OF Henry J. fofsfall-Op'
position Of Oscar FOrstall, appellant. From The
Second District Court o! Orleans. judgment AL
frmed.
Embezzlement. From the First District Court OF
Orleans. Judgment affirmed.
pellant.-Fiom Fifteenth Judicial District. Motion
70 dismiss appeal Appe liant neglected TO 'urnisn
BY JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 400 1urey harris We. Mrs Mary J. Wood
Orleans. Judgment disuissng Intervention re-
No. 4627 State ex rel NJ Phillips vs. New Orleans
Gasl.ght Company. appelant-Judgnert affirmed.
No ll0i. state VS.. Julius SOcha. appellant
From First District Court of Orleans. The case
should have been brought before us by bl! OF ex'
ceptious, OILY errors of law in motion for new
trial can be revised. not the facts. Judgment at
No. 4668. O. L. Blanchard vs. NJ Kenisen. appel.
iant.-From Fourth Dis riot Court of Orleans. Mo.
ton to dismiss appeal for want OF jurisdiction;
Plaintiff sued for S418. Defendant rec0Hvened
for i 10 200 Judgment rendered in favor of
plaintiff, ard defendant allowed suspersive ap.
peal The amount in dispute is less than $500.
The appeal not be maintained as to the recon.
ventiOIal demand. as no appeal was taken there
1iOm. Appeal dismissed.
Telegraph Company, experimentation Filth S.
trict Court Of Orleans. Error in dispatch. diff
ferput COMPANY transmitted Inc message
of the way. the plaintiff sent goods according to
instructions received through defendants who are
Responsible for the damage Judgment affirmed
Railroad Company city of New Orleans, appel.
liant From Eighth District Court of Orleans. The
question s. had the General Assembly the right to
Grant to the New Orleans Noble and Chat tanooga
railroad for eight a passenger depots, the prof.
ertv in quest ON. II is shown the state had 10
In re De A1nlas L., 2O7. The question is can the
State give the property OF the city 70 me Iaireaa
their streets. 10 Peters. 6ol. If the State could
grant part of the Guays and aud street it could
grant the whole. IL could grant all the streets.
and virtually make its inhabitants prisoners in
their houses. The giant to the plaintiff differs
from this only in The degree of the injury and
in The prin ,lile. The State has the power to
woke the charter OF the city. but it by 10 means
follows the property OF the corporation would pass
protected ike that of other persons. story Con.
sections 1893 1899; Peters, $50. il2 4l3. 627, 65;
So; 10 Wend. SO, 6l g.; Cro'y Lin. is7; q Penn.
Ia, Wall. 20 :: Cranch 292 Paige Ia; IL Wend.
ISL 50 Barbour; Cen; arr: TO- Constitution United
FTst -B-cause the Legsla- IRE could 10, change
the destination OF these public plans.
Because III: could. II could 20. have granted
Judgment an1al'ed and injunction dissolved.
Ordered that plaintiff be res FAMED and liza bil!ted
from occupying the property. Nhle1 Jas!'cc
No. 200 John E. Breaux VS.. ). &. Lejeune. ap.
nell6Qt.-FIOD seventh JtOlcldl DlStT!cts S0u'
trove1sv Tor Office of sheriff the Plaintiff has mis-.
taken his remedy and mnst proceed under the liz
trusion act. u A. t55 49, IS a. .S4. Judgment an
Lued
VS. Mu'uai Ao and Benevolent Life Insurance Com.
panv FIR Ill Saventh W-tric: Court OF Orleans.
Re- sa,n$ The nolcS :" asTgssm tart WAS ONLY
declared before thirty Gays had elapsed. While
the endorsement remained uncance lied 1t must be
regarded voluntary extension OF the t!Inr.
Judgment of this cour, of January 10. 1873. set
SIDE. Plaintiff to have Judgment tor $1,000:
No. s3 Stat, vs. He5y pese n M ax
exhausted the jury may b" drawn therefron, even
though fifteen months have elapsed since the lis:
of Jurors was furnished by the sheriff. The form
OF the Indictment WAS sufficient Judgment al.
tImed.
Railroad Comosn. VS.. c!!y OF New Orleans. appel.
aat, ard Charles Morgan. INSTRUMENTATION
Eighth District Court Of Orleans. Judgment an.
n9et asa % " W. Tho@as s. Due,
gan, appellant From Seventh District Court OF
Orleans. damages alleged for trespass % defend
ants iaborers S3l5 90. Court below gave GOA %.
Judgment annulled.
No. 1860. State rel. J. . nixon IS. James Ora
ham, Auditor. State Of Louisiana. interrsnor
ard appellant-Fron Eighth Dlstrie; Court Of Or.
leans. We do not recognize the right OF the At
iorney General whose term IS about expiring, 20
make an agreenen: not to take an appeal in a
mon Us. the Auditor. % A iO2. It is the same
clam III the hands OF another. II is proved the
the relief o: J. 0. Ni1oa was passed. Judgment
| overr,Iled and Judgment FOR :ntervenor.
No. 29l5. Ma:tii bee, John OSiel. executor, VS..
Star MItuai Insurance Company appellant p, ON
Seventh District Court Ut Orleans. Judgmeu:
| amended and affirmed.
No. 1923. Charles a ". Pou;z rs. Angus: Reggie
e. al. appei,aE.s.-From Seventh District Court %;
| orleans. Judgment affirmed.
| No. $3.50. Geo,s'ala Wbaan IS. Jessie r: Irwin,
natural tutor. experimentation Seventh D.strio;
| cour; of Orleans. judsmen: affirmed.
No. 49.3. Magdal.na La!c'eI ct al. rs. New Or.
jaw appellants From second j ,i!ciai District
NJ. :G! to dismiss apreai denied. the fault II no,
fixing tie return day !".ns all error OF TIE Judge
80 40 s a. Steamboat Nick Ion:wort' vs. ,osep,
| y. S.awlaa. app. llan;.-Frcm Fourth Uis:Ic:
| Cour. u! Orlea'.s. judgment affirmed.
! No. 2sGi Felix Lsrue. appellant. 20. J. g. Van
! horn e, ais.--From Secoii District Court OF O:.
leans. Judgment affirmed.
arlel'ant.-siom S:sth DIS 'ic: Court OF o:!'aDs
| judgment atflmed.
IT,. Superior Court--Rul, for u.andamUs to cOIi.
pei de'endant TO allow al aYpea. GA the security
! offered. Rule refused.
-. char .s Clinton Aud,or. appe.iant.-tr La The
Superior District Colrt of o leans. The law Great
! Ing the Leree Company dues no: violate the ::
| st.tu;iona! limit 10 :hc state debt. We can not
| determine whether tie payments are demanded
a valid consideration. lie objection 30 act NJ.
80 ratifv.ns III. contra between the company
! and TIE Governor are rot OF mrcn force. We are
ONLY called u;oa 10 decide If the acts cousti:u
| tl"I.d Judgment athrIne.i.
No. ,..5. J lin Halliday Va. \. Landta. appel
| ,spt-F:on the Sixth District Court OF uIIei.us
Re hearing. Judgtntu: reversed.
No Al. Staje v.. Edward Kelley. alias Jack
Tohy.-huter.:I2 = vess. j, the day time wit. ~
zen: steal. From First District Court OF Orleans
IA. statute ;,e.mict: pres cu'ion i,r infamous
crimes by attenuation IS not unconstitutional u
a. "a u was not necessary that ;he accused
SD ,;.ld be asked if lie wanted counsel. He could
be hear. FOR l:mselt and ccuDse! not be fore; d
on a lsuLer. J. IS ..ot nee. sSary 70 set forth
villa. he intended 10 steal. JuCgm nj affirmed.
Nc. 4:it. Fraac> i,--,hey vs. Roma = ScG!a:tr
ct a. appelan: s.-EI.u1 r.. il JudiCia. district.
Judgment reversed.
No 2,34 john L. W. - al IS. Firenen's Char.
table iseociat or and .i.T OF Sew Oh eaIs, appel.