New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-02-03
THE WEEKLY REPUBLICAN
Terms of Subscription.
auY -. div mnufha 90 "a
Advertisements
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY :, 1874.
United States Circuit Court,

Presentation. L. ii. D1rell, distric
Judge.
Goodyear Vulcanite Dental Company and
Josiah Bacon vs.. joseph Bauer.-Ordered
that patent No. 1904 is valid patent; thai
defendants have iutringed upon it, thai
plaintiff recover OF defendant the profits
and gains that have accrued to him and
damages sustained, and that defendant be
Derpetua.ly eDjoined from making, etc, any
dental plates OF hard or vulcanite rubber.
Carson Nudge VS.. City of New Orleans
On trial.
supreme Cont.
Present-Chief Justice Ludeline, and
Justices Taliaferro, Howell and Morgan.
The following opinions were read:
BY CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELISG.
No. 1898. State ex rel. L. y. Benton vs..
Judge of Superior District Court.-Peti-
ton for mandamus to compel the Judge
qaO to reduce the amount of bond 10
set aside sequestration. This can not he
done by mandamus. The court having
acted, the Judgment can not be set aside
except by appeal. 1t can not be altered
by mandamus. The judge has done nothing
since the appeal from the order granting
representation. His answer is satisfactory.
Realtors prayer rejected, with costs.
No. 300I. A. s. and L. Roberts vs. Fritz
Huppenbauer, appellant.-From Fourth
District Court of Orleans. Possessory ac-
ton. with damage for tresspass. Judg-
nent of lower court for plaintiff affirmed.
No. 1886. State ex rel. NJ. lie Blanc.
appellant. vs. Frame A. Woods ct al
From Fifth Judicial District Contest for
office under the intrusion act. The same
questions are presented as in Bonner VS..
Lynch. Judgment affirmed.
No 1913. Succession of Mrs. Evelina
Green, james ii. Green, appellant-Fr
Second District Court of Orleans. Judg-
ment of lower court, recognizing Mrs. Her
rick as transferred of the rights OF appellant.
affirmed
BY JUSTICE TALlAFERRo.
No. 41o6. James Foulhouze, appellant,
VS.. Myra Clark Gaines.--F'rom Fourth Dis
trict Court of Orleans. Plaintiff obtained
judgment of 10000 and garnisheed the CITY
of New Orleans, which was a judgment
debtor of defendant. The city answered
that the judgment had been seized bv sun |
dry persons. Other garnisheeS were cited. |
A. Schneider answered that there might at |
some time be "a balance in favor of Mrs. |
Gaines. S. NJ. Todd answered that there
were prior claims, but there might be a bal
ance. 5. b. Packard answered that OH an
execution he held against the city there
were several claims. All announced they
mad received no money or property belong !
ing to Mrs. Games. Plaintiff took a rule to
show cause why the city should not be con
1t lnneu to pay his demand.
The city excepted that the proceeding
was not cognizable by the court as a sum
mary proceeding, that the claims would
absorb the whole fund, and, having supe-
nor privilege, the owners should be parties
10 the rule
The court discharged the rule. sustaining
the objections that the plaintiff could not
proceed summarily by rule, that they were
entitled to a jury, and that the order would
h. Of L., |
States courts.
The court erred. There was no conflict {
of Jurisdiction. The city went to trial
without asking for jury. +
The judguect was the property Of Mrs
Haines and liable TO seizure. The city was !
4 mere stake holder in the case l. is clear ,
hat over and above the amount of pre-
erred claims there will remain enough to |.
,atlsfy the judgment {. r.. 2i6, 6i2.
Judgment reversed. Plaintiff to recover s
rom the city of New Orleans as garnishee a
10000 with interest from September II, s
ST. L
No. 3006. Alexander Walker VS.. J. j. OLA t
a, ppellant-From Sixth District Court of =
orleans. This case is substantially the II
anne as that of Walker VS.. Bietry, "a A., $
40. Judgment of the District Court an Il
uiled and reversed. Plaintiff to recover p
100 and pay costs of this appeal Defend 5
n to pay costs in lower court. '
No. 3O6S. Eliza V. Mahood, appellant, vs.. I
ia Tealsa-From the Seventh District !
,ourt of Orleans. Plaintiff sold defendant o
JJ00 worth furniture to be paid for in Install Il
lents of $500 per month. $500 unpaid. De .
endant has sold portion and is endeavor- q
~ 10 make away with the rest. Defendant :
leges fraudulent representations of the IL
alue and that the contract is contra bOHoS Il
ioreS the furniture to be used in houses of p
restitution. Er tWpi puctO nil oritlr dctio. st
he court below set aside the sequestra- OF
ion. In Hubbard VS.. Moore, u A., 5g2 l.
nd Sampson VS.. Townsend, the court held fo
hat this knowledge did not vitiate the hl
bntrac'. The plea OF contra boHoS mores 81
rejected. The furniture is not RI
lown 70 be worth less than represented. III
Judgment reversed. Plaintiff 10 nave Sc
dgment for $500 her lien recognized and G.
lie property sold to paid the said sam. on
Justice Howell dissenting, Justice Nor. er
IN with him.
The plaintiff knew the purposes for which
G property was To be used Sac was in
g habit of frequenting the house. Would la
X the inmates IN the morning what
lount of business had been done She n,
lowed the business of letting houses for
ch purposes, this being the third she
ats. IL is not a case of a dealer OF furni- So;
re ike those above cited. lt is that of q III
man who rents house and sells its con-
It's for the purpose of prostltution-cn-
lrages the business By her presence and Ga
ans. The law, / think, leaves such peo-
where it finds them, and takes no inter- -,
in their disputes. think the judgment cid
'uld have been affirmed.
10. 36j9 Caspar Lusse VS. T. II. Patter-
and j. p. Flemming.-From Seventh
trict Court of Orleans. Plaintiff sold
endants house and lot for twelve prt