New Orleans Republican., 1873-05-06

Appeal from decree dlssolrlng llJancIon l@Aeh
nv d.f fendaDt. Judgment ainlmed. ,
" No. All Succession Of Milton Isylor;asF5,om
Second District Court OF Orleans ken-&ude@ 20
'o"e' ''D1' 50 srsscE MORGAN.
yo af52 STAG TX rel. Messy JiSdgee eY SIneO
Sinr District SuuI2 OF o leans s--PIiyer Tor n:aho
ia nus ordering an appeal TO be gsaa.ed" "aAn'
No. a s6si asL John NJ Hoy.e 4 t3azahat, 3ssevh
ia, OBJ uteryenor appsllsnt..irom tn d roqith U.s.
Nc 3452 Jean ELtone tsoot ct a!o, az Peilaats
es. city of New OIlesns-lrom Fourth ois's'c'
Cs.u.t IF orleans. Judgment atii meds
G8sight Company, APPELLANT, IRON Eiehln US
tr!c9 Court OF Or:eans March isoo, me AZ. a.
was pas-.d The HIst section extei ded tLe i.n,i
OF &c company to 1885 The act OF ic1S nht .he
lin IL 1t 1875 GIouLd of actioI that she Snect or
the fast section net expressed III the LlIe.
gJns'o La. arr. u.s. Defendant txetits' J., Ira, Iha'
ghe At.oIGes General was not authorized 10 lnSi!
fute this suit 2. That tbe suit is premature %
Ne cause of acton disclosed. an
yhe exception to che II.nisFfty (" me &C. ed
should have been maIL sainede SadsHsS5 Stss'etu
AID saS5t I.slLssedo
First District Couss.
Stare IS, +. g. Mahauo-~PeIinry. Plea Of aet
SAFE ~s. Eugene Guioro-Enteying q iwe!iioGs.
house IL :!e sl.y with jute~5 30 sts:so Seao; 20!
S,ate IS. John farcsaye Pea Of nos
State rs. Eendesson Sevs::ee-sLasceryo eSxa %
state vs. Sofu eiou7-Gfeakire into a a6weSans0
house in lie night time. Plea Of not e'ity
Safe Joseph Sal.dor-Breasl 16i!o d sRo'
i'll the night tpes Plea of Lot guityo
State VS.. ". Wat Devine.-B!each of srpss and
emb. zzem.nt. Pea oi not guilty. ,.
State US. Frank &1' *, alas Don'1"AaTseHS' Si'@
same Va sane.~eisecessing stoiea goo3so S!ea pf
not guilty ,.s ...,
Plea o: gInlty IF assault accepted. "a
} State VS.. B Johnson-Two countsI fIet-nNS
ylary; gerGicto roJ guilty. Second -Enterlng Q
house in the j. h. Sue with 3lteGt 80 stea; vef'
STATE rs Jose Oomineuez and Antonio i'is'. .sTey'
diet of not guilty and pIisone rs dlscia'std
State VS.. DaLie C!aibol nea-LaScenys t3'aos tot
glliltye .a.s.o.,.
Sta:y rs, hIs TRomas.e~Ia. ceryo Pea os got
state ss Sohn Mercer.o-LarcerS. Verdict NS
guilty with Recommendation Of mercy Sentence
one day in the Parish Prisono :. ...o.o.,a
State Daniel Brggs.-C Tryns eohcAaeo
weapon. Nolle pros' Gri entered
State VS. Jacques Si'sor.-AssaulS aHd o&f1esS'
SsydlCt guilty.
Second DistricB E0uFts
Successiors If Jean Per TouIo Oscsf H. ?ase
rot. Louis Laigest. Catherine P. Oivero kaIe Hc'
| Mshono Charles Kuhn, Philip Canterbury Maze
Louise HI pp wife Cf Drausin FazeIdts and dan
nah Archer, Si!e OF Samuel Levy, openecS
fifth District Court.
a.eu2er tiey owner of bark s. 4. StalIes. SRo J.
4 Lam 4 60 Rehearing-Plaintf sues for freight
| and prmsge. oLveHtional demand for damage
| The pa. kages shipped fion New Haven 10
New York and delivered under q shed i'll apparent
| good order. ResLipped and delivered III New Or
| leans in appa1 emily as good order. The damage
was only discovered on opening. 1t was caused ny
| fresh water Tie goods were shipped ia TAR
weather.
Tae voyage from New Haven to New York lasted
| only few hours. From New York TO New Orears,
for; davs. The sse was in good order on arrlv-
| ing the entire cargo being well slowed and dun
nased The question is. when did the damage
occuIl When of the parties to suit
| has more means OF knowledge concerning a
| matter to he proved than the ether tie
| onus pIobsndi is on him. Bowman vs. Nc
Eiroy, Is A. 663. There is nothing in the evi.
dence TO show the packages we're not IN good order
when delivered On board the Sarah \. STABLES The
recital in bill OF laaing that the getds are shipp
ID good order does not extend beyond the external
| appearance. L.. .l3; II L. 2g0; II 49, Il can
not be Lisres aIded except bv very clear evidence
| Bond Fust A., Sol; 8 A. 29l.
In Levois vs Gale, Il An, p; 3o3, the supreme
| Court said: "The law applicable to common car
riess is one Of grea. rigor, and Giscountenances
negligence and waI9t of care" etc. In Mabhn rs.
the Olive Branch, l8 An 07 it said: w hen goods
| are del liveled in damaged condition, the burden
| is the defendants to show that they were not
| responsible for the cause OF the damage lhe
defendant in the IecOnYents0nal demand ID ths
case has offered some evidence which tends TO dis
| pei the theory that the damage could have oc
Cured board from fresh water; bat ffTink II
more reasonable to conc ude that IL did than ohae
il did not. Ghe ruling of Ile court music ccnse-
GUsutlyo be N accordance with TIE tenor SS the
Gecs OIs Giysadv e,uoted. 80 the effect 6es.f se
damage b@tg ehowno She 0Gus vas Cn ghe baEE 20
s.s eaGse3 boagdo The demand fer fright
,rst he allowed. ia compes sa:lO8 agaiUs: :aa: ia
SeeOnvVn'ior 5oS &scb judge eiSt asas: et a"SsG'
eJ. %6:S GostSo