New Orleans Republican., 1873-05-28


the legal board, il was null and void, and the de-
| fsndant has no s;anding in court. Justics "yly
dissenting.
REHKARiNG GRANTED.
No. 1900. Succession of Clapp in regard TO costs
of appeal
REHIARISGs RRFrsED.
No. 4542. Johnston VS.. Labatt.
No. 403l. State ex rel. Strauss vs. pubuciet.
No. 2884. Crocker We. Haas Reed.
No. 4489. BOud-eaux We. Martinez ct al.
No. 1900. Succession of Jesse G. Patrick.
Superior Oistrfcs Coure.
Anthony Gonzales vs. Louisiana State LOTTERY
Company. Petitioner sets forth that he desires .s
import Havana Lottery tickets. That it is not
prohibited by laws Of t. United States. The lot.
terry busine sanctioned by law in Louisiana
That he has paid his Gvnss ia tax That
That selling lottery tickets is legitimate busi-
| ness. That the ac, establishing the Louisiana
unconstitutional. Tina: the penalty imposed is
null ard void. That defendants propose to hinder
aintit. and asks that AL Injunction issue.
First District Court.
State vs E. Z. Duffy.-Robbery, larceny forgery
etc. Plea of not guilty.
State VS.. Henderson Seville-larceny. Eoe
sta vs. JOs+ ph SOutLerland.-Larceny. EOlle
State Vs. Thomas Francis-LaIceny. Plea OF not
st te vs Lawrence Gaze and Milton Smith.-Ob-
tainirg money under false pIetenses. Pea Of rot
State Vs. John Getsen, Frank Taylor and Alfred
Dupre.-False imprisonment Plea OF not guilty.
State vs. Joseph Macer.-.ssault and battery.
NCle prOsequI entered.
State VS.. Fred Hopkins-Assault and battery.
Plea of guilty.
tent to COR NIT murder. Pea of not guilty
State vs. Louis Wiltz-Assault with intent to
commit murder. Pea OF not guilty.
State vs.. J. P. Harrson.-Carrying a concealed
State VS.. Wash Rockwel.-Assault with intent to
State vf John Owens, atias .,olan.-Assault and
battery. Plea of not guilty.
State We. Mrs. MurpEy.-Assaut and battery.
state vs. Peter Keveney.-Assaa.t and battery.
state vs. Jules Ba,d-Assault and battery. Plea
of not guilty.
State VS.. John Bergans,ock.-Assauit and bat.
State ve William M:chel Entering dwelling.
| house in the night time without breaking and Lay.
| ceny. Pea OF not guilty
| dwelling house in the night time armed with a
deadly weapon. Given to the jury.
second District Court.
| Successio of Thomas Carroll, Claiborne Groom,
Leopold Klopman and CHARLES A. Fassy opeLeG.
Fourth District Court!
Frederickson Harte John Fr-dericks.-
Judgment in favor of Johanna Cornelius, admins.
| Cornelius, third opponent. decreens the succes-
sion to be the owner OF contents of tine drug store
corner OF s.. Claude and ElysiaI Fields street
and the SAINT = not liable TO be attached for the
| debts = John FIctericks.
John Burke We. Z. E. Duffy and Sam 7. Davis
RsS i1G nnd ss ns
terry ticket for twenty yhve cents III partnership.
Plaintiff took the .eket 9ptiy ,e Hgrehased psv., =
larceny OF the ticket William Burke. son OF the
plaintiff. was discharged. The ticket drew s1Goo,
said the arrest was an attempt on the part of the
defendant. Duffy, TO collect tebt by CT ninal pro-
cess. The action is properly brought IN the itame
| OF the father. Judgment for plaintiff for $3.50.
Fifth District Court.
| Myers ( Housman VS.. L. H. Levy & Co.-The
plaintiffs aege that they consi2uei ten bales OF
| cotton to the commercial irm of Levy 4 Co. fac
tors in this city in the latter part Of November.
| 1872, the net proceeds OF Which amounted to
$3.50 g. which they charge the f, m with having
c5ation Of f The n members thereof TO Wit Levy
| ard 3. +. Lengsfeid, and that they be Condemned
| il sohdo TO pay them the cum 0! $3.50 81, with hve
| per cent interest thereon i:em judicial demand.
| The defendants plead the general denial. The
evidence fully establishes the shipmen OF the cat
| ton. which marked IS. Myels, and the
amount of the net proceeds as alleged. The cot
| ton is shown to have been shipped 20 Voisin
Lyaudais OF this city who on receiving the IL, D.
! Messrs Levy Co. and borrowed 1000, which
they obligated themselves TO pay on OF the pro-
! the money, voisn informed Levy < Co. shat the
cotton belonged to Me!.rs l. Honsman; man
| ants, who so'l nine bales of it TO ore Z.
Weisenbach, for the sim of &Sne 81. The REMAIN
v
| making total OF $8is 81. Thus it appears that
vosiii X LivaudAis the cons gnees and agents
Of n MsiI 5b aGt and a ev oaned ev vos
| Lvauda;s Ne said sum of SlH00. That they did so
! with the understanding that he cotton " hen Re,
| ceived would be pa ced in ther hands for sale, and
| our the proceeds of which they might retain the
| amount thus l,aLed. The defendants having re-
| fused to pay the proceeds 20 Meyers = Hous-
! owed ;osin ( Livaddais nor Levy Co, ceail;
they new seek TO recover it OF them In. counsel
L 1ft IL
faith in making the loan oG Tins cotton. and c!te
| the case Of Walker Csssaway. A. ls, 10 show
| that they should lot be held lab TOR the price
Of TIE cotton. The court then held that 'wlere az,
| agent with whom merchandise is deposited
disobeys his private .lstuct,ons by the silipin :
It cont :ary 10 orders. third person VINO acted
| il good fai and OF the confidence OF co.trdct.
| made as 10 the merchardise, and o: p ssession
t.aIsfe ferred by the agent. "il not be permitted
:g..n it is C n.end.d that vcis;n K Lyaudais
la,. the right to sell; that they empi1ve. Ley. q
| precau:ion to get advance of 1900 IL antlcpa-
lion Of tie sale. and that they acted IN good faith
| but the agents OF Myers Housman. What was
the well understood scope OF that agency! Ihey
htv did not. Tney borrowed s % OF The defend.
| ats on condition that they should deliver to them
ten bales o: cotton belonging 10 the'p, "a ntlf,s.
This was not selling the c9ttnn. The W. De
| sin < Livaudais. aud were informed that Il
belonged TO plaintiffs. How, ,,hen; can they be
| kUrw that vWsn ( Livaudas were boI.
rowing tire money for their OWL use, ny stpn-
| !ating 20 deliver Ihe property OF others 70 pay
| III Reeves vs. Smith, A $40. think tia. ill.,
stead OF good lAiih, it looks rather like coi4usoD
,pe p.i,cpa s their relation rot t, al crei;
and debtor. bat !. ust and the agent mas 40 'ite
to :he thing. Mcuononsh vs. De.asses 10 Il iai
,.ledg-. or give il pasm.L: of tLtiI own dtots
rloier.y insrns'ed to them TO be d:sp"isea i',
:a Az o 800 A. -, 3.9, 10 A. 20, Il L. l65. l; IS
q well known ANA fundamental! pilLciae ol
tie 'aw of agency that the nrinclpa is nrulh Cd y
foy The authorized acts Of the agent. TIE agents
| il this case were authorized TO sci 'ncause 'ha'
Was the object Of the consignment Inls the de
| feutaIts Knew bu: they we:e not authorized u
borrow money il advance OF RECEIVING the COTTON
and ia anticipation Of lis sale for their own ust
and benefit They lac she power 70 ansGIzf
OF. The account Of sale was rendered 10 ' oi5ll
Livaudas but the proceeds were plactd 10 tAt
credit Of Voisin Y Livaudais for Their lnd.vltHa
inde oedn. IS TO Il. fe dans. Thus it APPEARS tta
the property OF Myers Houseman was sold pA
Lev, c.. who knew il was theirs, an! proceeds
app'ied 10 the payment CT Eoisln Livauoals 5
Geb'. There is nothing whateVer IN ~ Inc ,r,,l evl
dencs wh!c' .""Is 10 n"v.m sh"w, IN any man am,
art Of theirs. 49,. the slightest reason to oeileS'
.ha: voisii n Livaudas had authority from sheil
,Dent. The mos. that can be sad in behalf o. IN:
defendants is that ,hrv, NOlsn L!vauaNs, ~
| borrowing OF them, acted with the lhnlcla o o
! authority n the transaction. But tins does no
necessarily .rt nder Meyers X Housman resp9nsl
he for the po'eilt on that no b! or .ad1De
was transit lred to the defendants, ard 0t cals'
that there is not word OF evidence TO sht" ,l.
there VAS any real o. even apparent autLo.itl
vested in Vnisin Il Livaudais for their action IA
! principal is RESPONSIBLE ONLY for that appear
anc. Of authority which is caused bT ajiEs. L
| and not for that appearance OF conformity 20 Ihe
AUTHORITY which IS caused only br the agent!
| par on Contracts p. II il cauLo' he prcieade.
;hat by virtue of the agency 10 sell! V9 81! =
yalr al. can le said 10 have had an implied rlsi;
10 rledse or bind the property OF tier iTbc; pal
tor morley borrowed .or their own Use. IL DON;
So Vo!sill was slty OF breach OF trust @. Wh.cl
- /. 10 wee aware. III sl.ca cases a.. the .aI