New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-20
COURT RECORD. !
THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1874.
United States Circuit Court.

United States Circuit Court.
United States We. Pleasant Harris
COunterfeiting; verdict, guilty; sentence,
three years hard labor in the State Peni-
Tertiary.
Superior District Court.
Crescent City Gaslight Company VS.. New
Orleans Gaslight Company.-On the merits.
Continued to the min eteenJh instant.
First District Court.
NoLLE PRosEQUI ENTERED.
Larceny-M. j. Morris.
Assault and battery-Anthony Lenten,
Charity jackson. Dan Weathers, Frank
Smith, Nelly O'Neal.
PLEADED NOT GUILTY.
burglary and larceny-John Martin, 10
Turner, William johnson. Oh. Murphy,
alias johnson, Paul Young, Edward Brown
Carrying concealed weapon-Edward
Brown.
vERDICTs.
State vs.. Charles ssault and
battery. Two cases. Not guilty.
State VS.. David Allln.-L.arceny, Not
guilty.
State vs.. E. C. Fortier-Assault and
battery. Not guilty.
SENTENCED.
State vs.. William Kelley-Assault with
intent to rob. Fifteen months in the Peni-
Tertiary. Assault by willfully shooting at,
three months in the Peni0entiary.
second District Court.
Succession Of Louis Henry Riecker,
opened.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom has rendered the following
decision:
Columbus II. Allen vs.. James Wood
This case is before lne on d rule taken on
the plaintiff therein, Allen, to show cause
why the eX parte order granted by this
court, in appointing him liquidator of the
partnership concerns, should not be set
aside and annulled, because it was granted
ex parte in a matter wherein the mover had
a right to be heard. After hearing counsel
pro ct con, am satisfied the order should
be set aside, for although in an action of
settlement the appointment of Iqmdator
or receiver is left in a great measure to the
sound discretion OF the court pratt VS.. Nc
Hatton, III A., 260), it is but fair, reasonable
and just that inasInuch as the property or
partnership assets belong jointly to the
partners in an undivided whole, and mas
much as each is entitled to an equal share
with the other in every portion OF them,
each should have hearing in every pro-
ceeding that affects his interest, and is en-
titled to protection whenever it Is sought to
deprive him of the exercise of his equal
rights as partner. Blanchard VS.. Luce,
10 An, p. 46. In Martin vs.. Blanchin, l6
An, .p. 237. the Supreme Court held that
at is not in the iauthority Of a court to
appoint ex parte a recriver of assets be-
longing to partnership Thst"a writ of
sequestEation, or rule upon the defendants
to concur in the appointment of receiver,
by the parties, would be the proper RENE
dy." The learned counsel for defendant in
motion made distinction between the OF
fees Of liquidatOr and a receiver, but up
on examination l discover that the Supreme
Court has made none, and that it generally
employs the two terms as equivalent to the
game thing. The writers on partnership
speak of the person charged with the settle
ment of parte rship business as receiver.
This term seems to belong more particularly
to chancery practice, and certainly has the
same significance there that the other term
of liquidator has in the civil law courts.
The functions of the two are equivalent.
The motion must prevail, and the ex parte
order be set aside as being of no effect.