New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-07-29
COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court, sitting at MOnroe-Ab.
srrac: Of Important Decisions.
BY CHIEF JUSTICE LUD

BY CHIEF JI SIZE LuDEL1NO
Tutorship Of c. G. and Mary L. Nugent
4 tutcr g not responsible Tor the lnvento-
ried value of slaves, where they were eman
cipated after they went into Ills possession
Campbell vs. EdwarGs.-Where land is
described in mortgage as my tact OF
land situated in Morehouse parish, State OF
louisiana, In township seventeen north.range
six east. contaning 800 acres held that
that description is sufficient. Mortgage rec.
ognized property ordered TO be sold to sat
isIy sane. Appel.ees pay costs.
John j. Hasiey ct al. VS.. Phinetta 3.
Hasley-Suit 10 annul will This is a
copy Of the will
..AT HONE, March 4, 1870
I this dav make my will. l want my
wife to keep and maneg all OF my estate
both reil and pursnel duran her life time
and be lowed 10 sell eny Of the land for
not less than the apprsMent, and ap-
point ny wife administrator.
DAVID HASLEY."
Obiec.ions-fhat nothing is conveyed to
the supposed universal legatee; that the
will is contrary to the laws OF this State,
containing . substitution and fdei COM
msissn clause contrary to law; that plaintiffs
are the sO!s forced heirs of David Hasley,.
and that said document, so pretended to be
probsted on the fifteenth Of January, 1873,
attempts to deprive them of their legiti-
mate portion secured to them by law, and
that said pretended will is void for want Of
meaning, and that the probate thereof ia
null and void.
The grounds upon which the will is at
tackled are inconsistent. There is no sub
stitution, nor .fdei comnsissa.
The words OF will, like those OF law,
''are generally to be understood in their
most usual eignifcation."
The will oi David Hasley has all the
formalities Of an Geographic testament, and
it is capable Of being understood in the
manner interpreted by us. 1t is our duty,
therefore. to maintain its validity"
State VS.. A. jackson ct alone can
not take the chances Of verdict in his
favor and, after conviction, object to the
jury" An. pa. Judgment affirmed.
IY JUSTICE MORGAN.
rlournoy and Millsape vs. N. II. Grady,
tax collector-It is admitted that plaintiffs
are commercial partners, and that each of
them is responsible for his own license;
that they have only one place OF business
and only one store where their business is
carried on; that they sell goods, merchan-
disc and groceries in all quantities. from
parcel OF = package up to any quantity to
suit purchasers; that they sell one pound Of
-four or ten barrels Of the same; one yard
of calico or ten bolts OF the same, as Occa-
sion otfere; that they break packages re-
ceived by them and sell the same at retail;
that thew do the ordinary business in the
country and are not importers or jobbers,
and that they do not sell by sample.
Upon this admitted state OF facts the
legal question TO be determined is, are they
to pay for the license of Wholesale dealers,
or are they to pay the license OF retail
dealers! If the former, they will have to
pay s1OO; if the latter, they are to pay
only $l5.
Retail dealer are those who keep an open
shop, and who sell provisions and liquors in
email quantities. Civil Code, 390s.
Wholesale dealer we understand to be
person who sells by packages. In our opin-
ion nan may be both wholesale and re-
tail dealer.
He i. a wholeeale dealer when he sells
parcels OF goods in packages, as, for in
whisky and -four by the barrel. OF oHe or
more sacks OF coffee or bolts Of goods At
the same time and to the same party.
He is retail dealer when he sells flour
by the pound, whisky by the gallon or bot
tie, drv goods by the yard. He is both a
wholesale and retail dealer when he sells
all such articles by the package or by the
pound inditerently. And as this is what
these plaintiffs do, az they confessedly sell
by wholesale as well as retail, they muet
pay for wholesale license.
Gerspach l. Herring VS.. w. n H. Mulln.
Parol evidence was admitted to prove a
promise to pay eight per cent interest.
This is q ground to amend the Judgment.
Interest reduced to five per cent, and, as
amended, Judgment affirmed, defendant
pa ying costs below and appellee costs in
this court.
John Henry 4 Co. ve. McCord Il Co
THE remedy OF attachment, particularly
as it has been enlarged by recent ieglsia-
ton, is a harsh one, and those who seek re-
lief under it must bring themselves strictly
within its provisions Judgment affirmed.
j. N. Jone. AID 3. L. Sims vs. N. NJ.
Grady, tax collector-(two cases consoli-
dated Police juries IN assessing license
upon the keepers OF shops where liquors
are retailed ''are not restricted in their ac-
ton to the amount of that eXacted by the
State
1t is matter entirely within the discre-
ton of police juries to say when the sense
of the people Of ward, town or city shall
be taken to determine whether or not
drinking saloons shall be licensed. A fail
ure to order such election does not prevent
said bodies from assessing license.
The court does not discover any want OF
equality or uniformity in the licenses
assessed to retailers Of spirituous liquors,
keepers of grogshops. bar-rooms. etc.
Every person carrying on the same busi-
ness, is charged tho same cum for the privl-
lege of doing so.'
Iniunctions dissolved with twenty per
cent. damages and $50 counsel fees in each
case; appellees paying all costs.
By JUSTICE 1ALIAFERRo.
Mrs. NJ. j. Puckett and husband vs. w.
l. Law; E. Nalle, intervenor.-AmOng the
powers conferred upon commissioners, In
other States, by the act Of 1910, was that OF
the power to take renunciatiOns of marrled
women of the rights of property held, or
mortgaged by their husbands. Judgment
affirmed, with cost.
j. C. Morton VS.. J. G. Copefand.-Where
a husband sues on a note given to the wife
for paraphernal property; held that 1.-THE
fact that the husband brought the suit
would seem to imply that he was admins
tering the wife's paraphernal property,
and entitled TO bring suit. Judgment
affirmed, with cost.
j. G. Sanders VS.. F. NJ. Grant.-A deputy
execute commissions for taking testimony
By JUSTICE HOWELL.
4. 3. & n. B. Thomas Us. Henry Fuller
"In contemplation of the law and the par
ties, the delivery of the land had passed to
the defendant at the execution OF the au
thentic act. The extension of the time to
pay the cash until actual possession was
taken. was an extension OF the terms, an
indulgence. and NOT suspensive condl-
ton"
Judgment reversed; exception as to note
and damages sustained; in other respects
remanded. appellee paying costs.
Rogers Il Woodall VS.. Jasper Gibbs
Where partner in firm crossed into the
Confederate lines and received Confederate
notes in payment Of note, held that a
second payment can not now be enforced,
by urging the payee's own unlawful con.
duct, and the firm is bound. Judgment at