New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-12-20

the departure Of Leathers caused the
plaintiffs 10 loss, it produced considerable
i'll feeling between the parties, which Cap
tain feathers attempted to do away with
by entering into settlement or compromise
with the plaintiffs, by which the Belle Lee
should carry the United States mail on Sat
urday evenings from the latter part of No
vember, 1868. until the first Of April, 1859.
without charge; that on the said first of
April the mail should be turned over to said
Leathers, he receiving half of the price Of
the contract and letting X. w. Adams have
one fourth or One-third interest in the mail
boat he might build to carry the mails on
Saturday thereafter. Leathers, after the
said twenty-seventh of November, carried
the mails tor several months, for which he
received no compensation, and he afterward
teAdered Adams the stipulated interest in
bis new boat, which Adams declined to ac-
cept. A draft Of this contract was written
but not signed. 1t is alleged by the de-
PENDANT that this contract was made us a
full settlement of all the difficulties between
him and the plaintiffs, while the latter say
it was a new contract in reference to the
mails, and having no reference to any diff
culries growing out of their employment of
Leathers to command the Allen. After the
Allen had been Withdrawn by the plaintiff,
we find them turning over her freight to the
Belle Lee. This is fact going to show
that the contract of the twenty-seventh OF
November was an adjustment of the dit
feIences between the parties. The weight of
the evidence leads me to this conclusion. A
dIligent examination of this case cOnviDces
me, that, although there was a violation of
the contract by feathers, as | have already
said, it was caused by lmperious necessity.
He and the plaintiffs were suffering loss,
and further maintenance OF the Allen 10
the trade, under the circumstances, would
have been injurious to all the parties can
cerned.
The severance of the relations between
the parties appears to me to have been of
ultimate benefit. both to the plaintiffs and
defendant. The plaintiffs. therefore, can
not recover.
Let the petition and demand of plaintiffs
be dismissed with costs.
Fifth District Court.
The following decision was rendered by
Judge Cullom:
Hugh Flemming Folwell w. Hugh Cas-
sidy.-PlaintiH slept at defendants hotel,
as d. transient guest. April fifteenth, in
room No. 81, when his watch. worth $780,
and $50 in money, were stolen from him.
Defendant alleges he was guilty Of no
negligence; plaintiff locked the door of bis
room, and left the key in the door; was
sober; his pocket-book was empty in the
morning, and watch gone; the key was
in the door, which was unlocked; there was
no bolt on it; he notified the cl. rk and was
insulted; he did not register his last name.
The clerk testified the lock was in good
order, had not been tempered with, and the
room could not be entered except by the
door. No signs were found of any improper
entry. The plaintiffs testimony is unsup-
ported. No reason was given for the man
ner of registry. Middle names are merely
descriptive, and the law takes no cogniz-
ance of them. No evidence of character is
introduced, and no cOrroborating testimony;
although ample time to obtain it has
elapsed. Providing his statements are true
the liability Of inhkeepers ia fixed by C. c.,
1869. The defendant kept a secure
place for the deposit of valuables. He
is not responsible for the loss of any
articles not deposited. unless through
fraud or negligence, except of watch
or jewelry ordinarily worn on the
person. The defendant appears to have
exercised due diligence. The lock was
good. 1t was not necessary. although
proper. to have bolt. The plaintiff no.
ticed its absence the night previous and
made no complaint. The room appears to
have been secure. The case of Van Orden
Va. Morse mot yet repOrted) is in point and
supports that of the defendant. Folwell
having accepted the room without protest,
and Cassidy having used due diligence in
protecting his guest, there is judgment for
the defendant.