New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-03-04
a|elu 0rlsaas gepahliea11.
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICIAL JOURNAL Of NEW ORLEANS
THE COURTS.
United stntcs Circuit Court.

HondS yesterday IN favor OF plalntlff5.
j. G. Rosenfield We. Adams Express Com
pany.-Ths case was decided in favor O
plaintiff, and damages to the amount of on,
cent awarded against defendant, and tina
the costs be divided between the two lit
giants.
Superior District Court.
Valcour G. Hough VS.. New Orleans ant
Carrolton Railroad Company.-The plain
tiff herein sues defendant tor $4,000 damages
The plaintiff was a driver in the employ o.
the New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad
Company, and was discharged some time
last summer.
He instituted suit for wages due him W
to the time of his discharge in one OF the
Justice courts. The company filed an an
swer, alleging and Stair g that he was dis
charged for receiving fares and appropri
atiug the same TO Ills own use. Judgment
was rendered in favor Of plaintiff in the
Justice court, from which judgment the
railroad company appealed. The case was
tried in the Third District Court. and the
Judgment of the lower court affirmed.
The plaintiff then instituted suit in this
court for damages as aforesaid, alleging
that the said answer of the railroad com
pany is grossly Hbelous, and by reason OF
the same he has been unable to obtain en-
ployment, etc. Wherefore this action.
After examining a number of witnesses,
the court, Judging that he had fully estab
lished his claim for damages, and that the
railroad company bad failed to prove the
charges alleged by them, granted him $1,000
damages, with costs Of the suit.
Ansel edwards vs.. City of New Orleans
A petition was filed yesterday by plaintiff,
claiming SAC GO fer salary as alternate re-
corder of the First District, city of New
Orleans, for the months OF April and May,
1871. He alleges that he was elected alter
nate recorder BY the City Council May 10,
1870. and it became his duty to act as re-
cOrder ia the absence, sickness, resignation,
removal or death of the recorder of the dis
trict He AYERS that the recorder, u. L.
Houghton, resigned on the twenty-thlrd OF
May, 1871; that under the law the office re-
verified to him, and that be stood ready at
all times to discharge the duties thereof,
and rendered his sery ices to the Council.
Lacy & Butler Vs. commissioners of the
New Orleans park.-Plaintiffs sue defend
ants for $4,000, counsel fees. for services
professionally rendered in the suit OF Sam
ueI Friedlander against defendants in the
Eighth District Court.
Second District Court.
The SUGGESTIONS of William c. Lee, Amelia
Colin, wife of l.. Lucien Pessou, of Dom-
mic Parodi, and of Widow Fortune st. Ar
maud, have been opened in this court.
Fourth District Court.
Judge Lynch Yesterday resdered the fol-
lowing decision
Nicely ct ais va. Airey a. Co.-jobn g.
Nicely and Mrs. Jane NJ. Nicely, who reside
in Rodney, in the State of Mississippi, and
are administering the estate OF David 3.
S acey, situated in the parish of Tensas,
brought this action against the commercial
firm Of T. l.. Airey Il Co, of this city. The
plaintiffs allege that on or about the eighth
day of December, 1871, one A. n. Gould OF
said parish drew his certain draft or bill Of
exchange on his merchants, Garrard. Craig
d Co., of New Orleans, for the sum of $1,000,
payable fiye days after sight to said Nicely,
acting in his capacity as executor of the
estate aforesaid, and for valuable cOnsidera-
ton; that Nicely sent the draft to Airey &
Co. for presentation and collection; that
Airey & Co. undertook to collect the draft,
but failed to present the same for payment
and acceptance in due time, or to have it
duly protested for non-accepance and non
payment, and to give notice to the proper
parties, whereby plaintiffs have lost their
recourse against said Gould, the drawer of
said draft. Judgment is prayed for against
the members of the firm of Airey d Co. in
sUlidO, for the sum of $1,000, with interest
from December 20, 1871.
The answer is a general denial
The signatures of A. n. Gould. the drawer,
and of John G. Nicely, the indorser, are
proved. The draft was mailed to defend
ants On December l9, and reached them
On the evening of the twenty OF De
Cember. Airey & Co. on that evening or
next morning presented the draft for ac-
ceptapce and payment TO Garrard, Craig q
Co, who stated that the drawer had not
funds in their hands sufficient to meet its
payment; that they had advises of cotton
having been shipped, and they had 40
doubt that the draft would be paid. The
me. senger of Airey & Co. called the mex.
day and tho draft was accepted verbally:
n member of the firm Of Garrard, Craig &
CO. said that the cotton had been received
and the draft would be paid at maturity.
A memorandum was made on the draft by
the party last named noting the twenty
first day Of December as the date of its re
ception and the twenty ninth of December
rs the day of its maturity. The draft was
presented for payment on the day OF it's
and when presented the house of
GaTrard, Craig & Co. was found to have
suspended payments, and payment was re-
fused. The draft was not protested. On
the thirtieth December Airey g. Co. tele-
graphed to Nicely that Garrard, Craig Il
Co. had declined to pay the draft. On the
same day the draft was forwarded to Nee
ly in letter acquaintiug him with the par
ticulars in regard to its dish0ner. Both the
telegram and letter were forwarded to Rod
ney, to which place the letters and mail
matter Of Nicely were usually sent
Theodore &. Sachse, q witness for plain
tiffs, says that Stanley o. Thomas, one of
the firm of Airey and Co, declared in his
presence that said firm would lose $1,000 in
of the failure OF Garrard,
Craig & Co.; that his firm held draft on
q trTard, Craig d Co, the presentation of
which Airey a. Co. had deferred from time
10 time as an accommodation to the former
firm. Sachse does not, however rccollect
whether Thomas mentioned the draft
herein in controversy. Inge, clerk of
Sachse, testities that he heard said Thomas
Hay, about the first Of January. 1872, on the
occasion referred to by Sachse, that the
firm of Aircy & Co. chad gone up" for a
thousand dollars. in consequence of the
failure of Garrard, Craig Il CO.; that
Thomas said that he or his firm had repeat.
ndly presented the Nicely draft to Garrard.
Craig * Co. for acceptance or payment,
but The latter had put of acting upon il
from time to time, and that Airey & CO.
waited upon Garrard. Craig & Co, by way
of an accommodation. This is denied by
hlr. Thomas, who says it is not true that he
over made such statements 10 Sachse or
inge; tLat Sachse WAS then hostile to his
brm tor having refused TO lend him $1,000
which he had previously solicited; that
Airey & Co. never granted any indulgence
lr delay TO Garrar,, Craig 4 Co., and
lever deferred the presentation of the
lraft Nicely says that lie is carrying on
his suit TO protect himself as executor
rom liability in the premises.
In order to disprove the testimony of defer
lants in regard to the verbal acceptance Of
,he draft by Garrard, Craig Il Co., plaintiffs
after the argument of the defense,
lied motion for the reopening of the case,
With u view to admit testimony that the
lraft sued on did not appear on the COM
perCia' 10 ks of Garrard, Craig Il Co, or
IN the schedule Of their liabilities filed in
bankruptcy on the second OF April, 1872.
In affidavit attached to this motion sets
orth that the toregoing inflammation was |