New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-12-16

| PRESUMPTION. Hon. T.. IL. Durell, dlstrlc
judge.
On motion of Hon. R. H. Shannon, SEE
onded by Hon. w. NJ. Randolph, and o.
suggesting the death of Hon. Samuel Ne
son, late associate justice of the Suprem
Court of the United States, the court ad
journed till tomorrow.
| Supreme Court.
The following decisions were read:
BY CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELISG.
No. 4727. State VS.. E. G. Pintado, appel
lant.-April &c, 1873 appellant obtained
time to file his transcript till May 10. Or
the nineteenth he obtained further time
which order was revoked when the cour
learned OF the previous one, and an appli
cation for a rehearing refused. This is
rule to show cause why the revocation
should not be set aside. The non filing OF
the transcript was due to the laches of the
defendant, and the rule is refused.
No. 1856. Q. A. 1hemas VS.. City of New
Orleans, appellant, from the Sixth District
Court of misunderstanding was
no error in the original opinion. June TO-
1870, the city invited proposals for $50, 00O
barrels of shells, subject to rejection of any
and all bids. Thomas bid was the lowest,
and the Administrator of improvements ad-
vised contract for $4,000 barrels. The
city accepted the suggestion. 1t is said the
Thomas consent. They could reject in
toto or propose modification to which he
might assent. He did this in the notarial act
1 signed by him. The term cash is ex-
planned by plaintiffs letter to be money OF
| city bonds at ninety cents. The city has
not been in default.
No 1882. Leeds & Co. VS.. United States
and European Propelling Company, appel
| lant.-From Fourth District Court of Or
| launu Whothar annanD fol Lon
within ten days or not is immaterial-it was
| taken within one year after the rendition
| of the Judgment and that is sufficient to
maintain the appeal. Whether notice of
| Judgment has been given or not does not
affect the right to appeal Motion to dis
| miss refused.
No. 4773. w. J. Woodruff VS.. William S.
Lobdell, appellant.-From Fifth Judicial
District. Suit for Office of parish judg e
The exceptions of defendant are the same
as in Morgan VS.. kennard, which were
held untenable. The plaintiff has been
commissioned and qualified. The defend
ant offered no commission. Judgment at
trmed.
No. 4Sl0 State of Louisiana vs. Gregory
Russell, appellant.-From First District
Court Of Orle ans. The defendant, convicted
of rape, moved in arrest of judgment that
the prosecution was conducted by an attor-
ney at law, and not by the Attorney Gen
eral. That office has the right to designate
an attorney at law to assist the State or
prosecute alone in certain cases. Acts o.
1879, Nos. 81. g.. The motion was correctly
overruled. Judgment affirmed.
BY JUSTICE TALrAFERRo.
No. All. State of Louisiana ex rel. James
Stafford vs. judge of the Superior District
Court.-Relator applied for an in function to
restrain the city from closing his place of
business. A rule to set it aside was made
absolute and an appeal refused on the
ground that the amount involved was less
than $500. Relator filed an affidavit two
days afterward that it did exceed. An ap,
peal was again refused. Relator obtained a
rule nisi from this court, to which the judge
answers that the amount did not exceed
$500; that the refusal to grant an appeal
can not be affected by any matter filed two
days afterward; that the judgment only set
aside an application for an injunction &c.
p, 307l, and can not work any irreparabe
injury Ia L., $50; Rob-, 395: % A., 300.
We think the bond was not Professionally
dissolved, but a final judgment was rem
dered. An amount giving jurisdiction TO
this court is sufficiently established by aft
davit; l Hen. Dig. mi, No. 10; 20 A., 300; %
A., 152; "a A 1874 Rule made absolute
No. 1850. State of Louisiana We. Edward
Donnelly, appellant.-From First District
Court OF Orleans. There is no assignment
of errors. no bill of exceptions, and no
errors we can discover in the record. Judg
ment affirmed.
No. 297S William O'Hara, appellant, vs..
A. B. Gouldy ct al.-FrOm Seventh District
Court of Orleans. Plaintiff engaged de-
PENDANT to construct house according to
plan and specifications, and he abandoned
the work and left the State. Plaintiff en-
gagged other wOrkmen to complete it al de-
PENDANTS expense. This suit was instituted
to avoid multiplicity of suits. The court
below was satisfied the plaintiff had bound
himself specially tor the debt. and gave
Judgment against him for the several
amounts. The sum he had deposited was
distributed in the ratio of twenty-five per
cent. The error here is that the creditors
to whom O'Hara is personally bound should
have participated pro rata. Judgment
amended accordingly.
No. 1884. Jacob Denney ys. l.. L. John
son, appellant, from the Seventh District
Court. PAL ish of Orleans.-Accountfo for 5000.
Defense, that the consideration was Con-
tederate money. The case belongs to that
class where the parties contradict each
other in the most positive manner. In 1862
plaintiff had on his plantation in st. James,
a large quantity of molasses and offered it
for sale at twenty-i five cents per gallon, pay
able at the end of the war. Defendant took
100 bbls. Several others took the same
all being present at the sale at the
ST. Charles Hotel. Defendant swears that
the payment was to be made in Confederate
money or bonds. Four of the other parties
sustain him. Plaintiff says it was to be ''iD
he currency of the country" At the close |
of the war defendant paid plaintiff 500 and |
it was inferred this made a new promise. |
Defendant says be paid it to make the !
plaintiff cease annoying him; that 1t was on |
aj.s.-.
that he owed him nothing. At the time OF |
the contract there was IN the insurgent |
States an almost universal conviction that a |
new government would be established: Con-
money had supplanted every other. |
We are OF the opinion that the contract had |
for its consideration an Illicit currency and |
the plaintiff can not recover ~ A.. 81; 10 A.,
I65. Judgment reversed and plaintiffs de-
nand rejected.
oelants, vs.. Mrs. Tudiania Macarthur ct al.
From Second District Court of Orleans
Petitioners allege they are children of Ar
,hur Macarthur Four other persons, through
error, were represented as heirs in the sue
,essiOn. Plaintiffs rely on the certificates
If their parents marriage and of their own
births, and the petition OF their mother,
lied April 4, 1855. naming eight children.
The marriage took place March g. 1914, and
ncAFLHur ultu ~ pfll L. 1919, d uihercuce VI !
lime of eleven years and twenty eight days.
The Youngest of the defendants was twelve
ears old, and all are alleged to be children
# plaintiffs pother by previous marriage.
Defendants plead estoppel as to one of the
Plaintiffs, she having acknowledged them
O be her brothers and sisters, and her re-
eipt for Il share of the proceeds Of certain
property of the succession. The plea of
stopped was sustained. The plaintiffs
honld have made their case certain. not
robable. They have failed to make out
heir case, and the Judgment is affirmed.
BY JUSTICE HOWELL.