New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-10

klchardsen vs.. Smith, determined this case
Judgment affirmed.
No. 5O37. Minerva NJ. Calvit vs.. JameI
Hoy ct al, Samuel Mitchell appellant
joined the sale of certain property under
seizure by defendant, on the ground that {
portion is homestead and the other ex
empt by act No 50 Of 1865, Revised
Statutes, 1862. The plaintiff is widow
infirm, with two children also intirm anG
incapable Of performing manual labor
There is some discrepancy in the estimated
values. The Judgment for stock Is in excess
OF that allowed by law and must be amended
in this respect. So far as it awards the
tract of land with improvements and one
work horse, it is affirmed.
Justice Morgan concurring, says: The
plaintiff is clearly entitled to the protec.
lion she invokes. To turn her out upon
the world in her present condition is to say
that the more helpless she is the less she il
entitled to the charity of the law. The
homestead law was to provide home fol
the homeless, give the destitute the means
Of support and thus afford some protection
to those who from misfortune would other
wise tbe o burden to themselves and the
public. The creditors of this helpless old
lady have taken from her everything she
has in the world except the root which
can drive her from.
Justice Howell dissenting, Chief Justice
Ludeling With him, says: The homestead,
like all exemption laws, should be strictly
construed and not enlarged, and that the
evidence does not satisfy him that the
debtor liz one to whom the language of
the statute, having persoss dependent on
him for support, applies.
No. 503f. Numa Gilliard vs.. BOulgny &
Esclapon, appellant.-From Ninth Judicial
District. Defendants sequestrated the cot
the sheri4i of $500. Plaintiff interviewed,
claiming superior privilege and reserved
judgment, which was confirmed "a A. 76.
Plaintiff then sued for damages in the bond
and recovered judgment; defendants appeal
ing excepted to the jurisdiction of the court.
The action is clearly not founded on the
bond and can not be maintained. Judg-
ment reversed.
No. 1922. Frederick Fluck VS.. K. NJ. Kill
patrick, mayor, ct al. experimentation
Ninth Judicial District. Plaintiff enjoined
defendants from closing his bar room, and
claims damage for the revOking of his IL
cense. Defendants allege his bar room vas
nuisance and closed as such, and claim
damages of $500 for the issuing Of the in
junction. Jury gave plaintiff $500. The
plaintiffs place was closed three days. 1t
was of the lowest class. Brawls and foul
language, continually repeated, show it's
baleful and pestiferOus character. The YER
dict is unwarranted by the law and the
evidence. The plaintiff should have been
fined and imprisoned. Judgment reversed.
No. 5O4O. Tom Bynum, administrator, VS..
Caroline Bynum, administrstrix, appellant;
NJ. Mcintosh, intervenor.-F'rom Ninth Ju-
dicial District. This case was decided in
"a A., l27, on the same pleadings. Plaintiff
then obtained judgment in the district
court ordering sale and account. That
portion Of the judgment ordering partition
is sustained; in other respects it is spnulled.
No. 506i. Charles L. Gilpin VS.. J. s. Wal
ton, j. j. Erman, intervenOr and appel
lant.-FrOm Fifteenth Judicial District.
Suit for twenty-five bales of cotton or ven
doris privilege if defendant be Adjudged
the owner. Dabney Palmer intervenes and
claims ownership. j. J. Ermsn iatervenes
and denies the possession by defendant of
the cotton when sequestrated. Judgment
was rendered for Gilpin for tivs bsles, he
paying Erman SlS5, and Palmer twenty
bales. Judgment affirmed.
No. 50i9 Joseph Moore, appellant, W.
Mrs. Inez Routh Gordon.-From Thirteenth
Judicial District Suit for 1920 %, al
legged to be for family supplies. Defend
ant denies the contract, alleges coverture,
and that no part was for her separate bene-
it, She was separate in property from her
husband. The plantation she occupied was
the one supplied, but no contract is proved,
except for a small portion. Judgment
amended by reducing the amount to that
proved by contract.
No. 50SS. N. s. Fuqua VS.. John Chaffee g.
appellants.-From Thirteenth Ju-
dicial District. Defendants obtained judy
ment on a mortgage on plaintiffs prop
erty. and he, as third opponent, alleges
homestead exemption, and asks a survey
and set off. Answer that the mortgage was
executed before the plaintiff obtained any
tights. The judgment in favor of plaintiff
was correct. The law confers the right,
md the law existed when the mortgage was
granted. The defendant accepted the mort
gage subject to the contingency. Judg-
nent affirmed
No. 505S f. Boldicker va. John East ct
ia, 'appellants.-frOm Fifth Judicial Dis
rict. Plain 5itf seeks to prohibit defendants
rom ,encrOaching on his land, and to re-
over damages. He proceeded by injunc-
ion, which defendants disregarded. TIE
ourt reviews the voluminous record. The
our5 below issued the second injunction,
which this court sustained, and the jury
ound for the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed
No. 5l09. State ex rel. j. Oscar Howell, !
the Fifth Justice Court of the
arish of Last Feliciana. The justice court
ondemned appellant to pay $50 parish |
cense tax as attorney. He claims that |
be parish jury has no right to levy a Ii
ense tax; that the constitution only au-
horizes the Legislature to levy an income |
ak; that the police jury has no such power,
nd that he is not liable. The relator took |
ut an Injunction against appellant re. |
training him from practicing his profess |
ion, which was dissolved on bond. The |
round assumed by defendant is not ten |
BILE. The constitution is silent, but the |
legislature has given parish jurles the |
over. The exception to the jurisdiction |
as properly oveIruled. Judgment al |
rmed.
No 5052. Mrs. Julia Scott and husband |
8. the world.-From the Thirteenth Ju-
icial District. Horace Graves property |
as sold at succession sale April Is, 1868, to
ne Sicer for $780, who sold it Deem
er 1870, to Mrs. Scott, who, September,
S73, alleging error in the sheritf's deed, Pc
toned the district court to quiet her IT,
e, which it granted. Rachel Lee and |
atherine Graves, decedents children, ap-
called, alleging, among other things, frau
ulent opening of the succession; that the
arties were not entitled to the monitiop,
suit being pending; that the homoiogation
as Irregular; and that the parish judge,
no granted the monition, was without au
lOrity. The mOniti0n can not avail tho
aintiffs under the circumstances; mont
on taken out in the parish of Tensas to de-
at claim in Madison for the very tract of
nd in which a suit is now pending. Judg-
emit declared null as to righta Of appel
n Is in the land, otherwise is affirmed.
No. 5042. Mrs. Corine lesson vs.. A. l..
rosman ct ais, appellants-From Fifth
ldicial District. Plaintiff claims owner
lip of corner lot through the ancestor of
,fendants, who allege the act of sale was
,der private signature; that no price was
ined possession and collected the revenue.
ne defendant moved to transfer the case
the United States Court on the ground
at he was citizen of New York under
q act of Con oresa Lulx u 1866 The court |