New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-02-27

count, $l6,050), Lalaurie had been called
on by Gerodias to pay. The payment made
to Harrison was payment for and to Ge
rodias Lalaurie had received full con-
sideratiOn from Gerodias, and made this
settlement with Harrison for him.
1t is, therefore, evident that, had he
given and been confined to a categorical
negative answer TO Colonel Breaux ques-
ton, the truth would have been suppressed
He was, therefore, compelled to answer as
he did. To have answered negatively
would have been true as to the language,
but false in the impression made. Conr's 3
conduct investigations for the purpose "l
arriving at the truth. The truth Is lhaI
Harrison had given a consideration Tor me
notes, to the extent Of $4,000, while II Is
equally true he had Lad no dealings WIN
Lalaurie. c,,;
Yet. if Lalaurie, in the course of his busl
ness transactions with GerOdlas, undertook
to meet his individual Obligations by stlpu
latiDp to nav what GerOdias would nave
been obliged to pay, ] can not see why the
witness should not be justified in so stating.
He maid lis debt by paying that OF Zero
dias 1t was urged by counsel that When
Gerodias first went to Lalaurle he dld not
demand money, but stocks. mat hat La
laurie owed him money Gerodids, helhg
little pressed for il, 10 enable him to settle
his balances with the State as the collector
of taxes, would certainly have called for it.
tiud no difficulty il solving this problem
of the learned advocate. Il is plain to my
understanding, that as 40 shares did ac-
tually belong to Gerodas, as is clearly
shown by the testimony of Mr.. Delassus,
as well as by the statements of GerOdlas
himself, he could not have done otherwise.
l I'll 4 l.
liver them up he became indebted TO Mr..
Gerodias Hence Mr.. Gerodias, on failing
to get his shares of stock, exercised the al
tentative right of demanding the money.
Mr.. Lalaurie had been unfortunate; was
not able to do either. and, therefore. eX-
ecutea his two notes for $4,000 each, and
made their payments secure by giving
mortgage upon his property. Colonel
BreauX spoke Of the counter letter, con
corning which something is said ia the evl-
dence. The letter itself IS not in evil
dence. know nothing of its contents. and,
therefore, can not permit the suggestion OF
its proposed existence to have any weight
with the court. II suffices to remark that
while il Is stated to have been drawn up
and handed to Mr.. Gerodias for his sigma
ture, he promptly rejected the proposition.
and exhibiting some feeling. even passion.
handed it back to the notary.
Having refused to sign it, the court can
not imag CINE by what principle its contents,
whatever they were, could IL any manner
affect or bind him. | lave given the entire
case very careful examination, and can
find nothing in its facts TO induce me 10
believe that | erred in the opinion lTst rem.
dered.
! will here remark that. as TO the great
confidence that appears to have existed for
sometime between these gentlemen, it hay.
ing suddenly terminated IL an unfortunate
disruption of their friendly relations. II is
exceedingly difficult for ME to conceive why
it was Iii it WAS not a consciousness of hon
est indie btedness) Mr.. Lalaurie should have
been willing to mortgage his property for
$4,000, no part of which ne owed, for one
who appeared to be embarrassed at the
time for money 10 settle with the Auditor
of Public Accounts. 1t does seem to NE
that prudent man would have been more
eIrcumspect than TO DO such q thing.
1t is rarely the case, that one so pressed
for large sums OF money. should :inc a
friendship so abiding after al! that had Oc.
Cured so recently between these parties.
as to induce him to make such q sacrifice
under such circumstances. without retain
ing some evidence of his righttO reimburse
ment. In the rule taken for new tria! il
is not pretended that new or additional.
evidence has been discovered since the case
was first submitted; and a. We have q.
! court of appeal, whose high prerogative it
| is to review the decisions of this court. and
| to rectify any errors Imay have fallen into,
| ! must refuse the new trial asked for. The
| learned counsel understand their remedies,
and will! doubtless avail themselves of
| them bv an appeal to the combined wisdom
OF the .dges Of the Supreme Court.
Sixth District Court.
Charles Morgan, residing in The city Of
New York, has entered suit in this court
against the New Orleans, Mobile and Texas
Railroad Company. He alleges that the
latter, formerly known by the name Of the
New Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga
Railroad Company, is indebted 10 him in
the sum Of So I60 - with legal interest
from January l. 1873.
The facts of the case are briefly as fol-
lows: Defendants issued certain first and
second mortgage bonds, with coupons for
the interest TO accrue thereon. IN each Of
said coupons, which are negotiable instrl:-
ments, payable 10 bearer, the company
promised to pay, at its agency il New York,
sac on the first Of January. for semi annual
interest on said bends. Morgan. being the
holder OF 1854 of them. demanded payment,
which was refused. and the coupons pro-
tested. Hence this action.