New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-21
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1874.
Supreme Court.

a. t.
tlheate OF Arthur Gastine Esq.. from the United
States Provisional Court of 1854 admitting him to
practice. The court said it was sufficient to ad
mt him to practice in all the inferior courts an(
| On motion of the Attorney General he was admit
| ted to practice IN this court
| The folowtngs decisions were rendered.:
| RE-HEARISGs GRANTED.
No. 1914. State Ct Louisiana VS.. Mr.. and Mrs ia
| RKHEARIyGs REFUSED.
| No. 5049. Joseph Moore vs.. Mrs. Jury Routh Cor
| don.
No. 5000. Jules verdier VS.. Philogene Coco
No. 1868. Baker Thompson vs.. Mrs. A. L. Pa
No. $685. frederick Fitch VS.. Mary A. Martin.
| CHIEF JUSTICE LuDELISG.
| No. 3400: William c. Sibley VS.. William Boyd s
| Co, appellants-From the Seventh District Cour,
| OF Orleans. Suit on promissory note, and the
! evidence fully susta ming the Judgment for plain
till, it is affirmed, with ten per cent damages foI
| No. 3271. u. W. Lar gston VS.. CASTOR Brusle ap
| pellaut.-From Second Judicial District. There
being neither allegation nor proof that the minors
mortgage was registered the dgnent is reversed
| No. $751; John Hughes and wife vs. Charles r.
| Caruthus ct al, experimentation the Fifth Dis
| dismissed
No. SIG. Charles De Greck ct al. VS.. Murphy L
Gairnes ct al, appellants.-FrOm Thirteenth Judi
ciaI District. Judgment affirmed
No. 5ll3 John J. Carruth vs.. Carter & Brother
appellants.-Fron Sixth Judicial District. Suit on
mortgage note; the defense alleging partial failure
Of consideration. Evidence to show usury was re
| jected on the ground that plaintiff was third
| party The judge erred in this but the Testimony
| offered would not alter cur opinion. II is imlna
teral, the note having been given deliberately. a
further payment of $500 having been made the
judgment, with this amendment is affirmed.
| No. STA. Albert L. Chase Vs. W. r. verlander ap.
| pelant-From Fifth District Court of Orleans.
from Brazos to New Orleans took the direct route
| and she was injured. He should not be responsible
for the whole loss risks were to run either way
Judgment annVlled.
| No. 1883. Succession of John Sheldon Simopds.-
| From the Second District Court OF Orleans. On
| opposition to account of administrator the judg.
| mentOf the lower court is annulled and given in
favor Of the insurance companies who filed suits.
| No 3O4o. D. C. McCan We. H. S.vFalkeson ct
| of Orleans. The plea of novation is estab-
lished The plaintiff had An account against the
pany, and for this tfe note Sued on was given and
defendants were substituted. 2 n s., IA; n. S..
631; La ~; l6 La, lao; A, 5is; IA A, 81. Judg
No. 1858. Alex. Chauf vs. Leon Ferrier, appel.
| lant.-FrOm Seventh District Court of Orleans.
The plaintiff was employed BY the year and de-
| ing him. Judgment affirmed.
No. 4.02. Mrs. E. Leblanc VS.. succession of
Charles Massieu.-From Second District Court of
Orleans. Judgment affirmed. Justice Morgan dis
senting.
BY JUSTICE TALlAFERao.
No. 1897. Josiah B. Richardson, appellant, va
James &. Zuutz.- From Fifth District Court of Or.
leans Plaintiff sued for damages for assault and
battery of $4,000 and the jury twice decided for
| the defendant. The. verdicts are unwarranted.
| The judge discharged rule for trial. The
defendant, by his own declaration, took the law in
his own hands. The state Of society will not allow
| this. Outrage and wild disorder would become
rampant if it were tolerated. The plaintiff suffered
damages bodily and pecuniarily, He should have
been awarded $500. Judgment reversed.
Justice WHY, dissenting, considers the quantum
of damages not Established, and the finding the
jury not erroneous. and refers to the dissenting
opinion of Chief Justice Sliden in Black VS.. Car.
rOlitOn Railroad 10 A. 81.
No. 476s. State ex rel. John J. Hayes appellant,
VS.. city of New Orleans.-Frem Superior District
Court. The court erred in dissolving the lnunc-
ton restraining the city from sending patients
the hospital OF Dr. Anfoux Case relnanded.
VS.. J. R. West, administrator of Public Improve.
ments.-From Superior District Court. Judgment
affirmed. the mandamns being dissolved.
No. 1871. James B. Taylor Charles Lauer ct
al. experimentation Fourth District Court of Or
leans. Judgment reversed.
No. 1868. Christopher CanutZ, appellant, vs.
Bank of Louisiana From Superior District Court.
The Judgment dismissing the rule of plaintiff ON
L. F. Generes as garnshee, is affirmed.
Ne. 3e4l Joseph Gerrlsh VS.. George W. Tardin
appellant,-FrOm Sixth District Court of Orleans
Judgment affirmed
No. 1896. state rel. Louis Gagnet appellant,
vs. Administrator of Public AccouHs.-From su-
periSr District Court, The relator has not made
out case emitting him to peTemptory man
damus. Judgment affirmed
No. 1882. State Vs. Frank Caro- appellant
From First District Court of Orleans. Robbery.
The provision OF the constitution of the United
states relative to infamous crimes applies only to
the federal courts. Kent, 3D. The information
was sufficient compliance with R. $; 1903 The
error in the name in the foreman of the Jury is a
clerical one. Judgment affirmed.
lant.-From fifth District Court of Orleans.
Motion to dismiss appeal overruled.
BY JrsTIcH HOWELL.
No. 1888. J. J. Krider vs. City of New Orleans ap.
rellaut-From Sixth District Court of Orleans.
The compromising of the suit in which plaintiffs
enforcing any demand against the city for his
salary as Mayor of Jefferson. Judgment reversed.
No. 1896. Isaiah Tharp, appellant, VS.. Oliver v.
"aggner.-From Second Judicial District. The
evidence not making out the defense tine plaintiff.
SHOULD recover Judgment reversed.
NO. 1Ol1. Mrs. Maria Hernandez Walker. appel
liant, VS.. Francis Limonguy ct al.-From Fourth
District Court of Orleans. BY notaral act Mrs.
Walker and her husband sold J. s. Tully certain
monguy was ab ,ut to sell the property, when Mrs
Walker in joined the SALE alleging the sale was not
public knows wife may sell her property when
authorized The sale is in due form, and though
1T might have been to raise money for her hus
band, whose sudden disappearance gave her the
knowledge that not affect third parties. judy
ment affirmed.
No. 4iO8 Maria Hernandez Walker, appellant, vs.
W. Jett Lean ct al-From Fourth District Court of
Orleans. Judgment affirmed.
No. 1900 Louiee DrOuet succession of L. F.
Drouet, appeliant.-FrOm Second District Court of
Orleans. The right of alimOny for iegitimate
child must be enforced against the parent or his
heirs. The administrator is the representative of
the creditors. Neither he nor the succession can
DE sued. Judgment reversed.
No. 4S77. Succession of Eugene Hacker.-From
the Second District Court of Orleans. Motion to
dismiss appeal denied. An appeal may be taken
from an order changing the terms sale from
credit to cash. because an irreparable injury may
result
No. so5l. ]. A. Dahlg1en VS.. stephen Duncan,
appellant.-From Thirteenth Judicial district.
Plaintiff was disturbed in his possession by writs
obtained by defendant against Charles G. Dahl
gren The possessOry action is not the mode to
test the right to enforce a mortgage or the regu.
Iarlty OF proceedings in execution. Judgment re-
yersed.
No. 5l76 Martin Rogers ct ell. Catherine Kis-
singer appellant.-From Second District Court of
Orleans. Objection to act OF emancipation on the
ground of informality. The notary used the word
domiclllated as SYNONYMOUS with residing. The
making the viii were observed If words we're
used which, taken altogether shows that the
notary did all that the law makes essential. the
will is good as to form. Judgment reversed.
Justice Morgan, Chief Justice Labelling, with |
him, dissenting. |
The rules regulating the construction of wills !
are simple, but they are, in my opinion ineXora-
bic. Nullity is the result of their violation In |
Tbs case DO not find that the will was dictated
and therefore dissent.
BY JUSTICE WHY,
Ne. 1889. Mary Dockham vs.. city of New Orleans, |
jotham Potter, eubrOgee and experimentation
sixth District Court of Orleans. The appellant has
superior right to the Judgment of plaintiff against
ha city to the plaintiff R. s. 26i3 2644 The author
ty of the attorney who confessed ud gment has not
oeen denied under oath. Danserfed VS.. Thorn
would not destroy the lien. K. =. 3il5, 346- Judg |
nent annulled, the city garnishee to pay the
mount of the judgment to appellant.
No. 22le. New Orleans Academy of Sciences vs. |
3oard of Administrators of University of louisiana |
lppeliant.-From the Fourth District Court of Or. |
cans Appeal dismissed amount not exceeding |
500. |
No 5ll0. F. S. Garner, appellant. VS.. Watson NJ |
lay and Sherif.-From Thirteenth Judicial Dis. |
riot Plaintiff appeals from dissolution of in. |
JUNCTION against executory process. Mrs. Mary
'enton contracted, after separation of property |
0 convey to her husband the property acquired by |
he Judgment. The mortgage under this contract |
S void spurlock VS.. Mariner, / A., 3O2; Heyden |