The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1874-08-07

cuarli ian and defendant decreed TO pay
over to Brown $4s13.s9, and deliver to
him property in his (defendant's)
the law.
Angelina Rentz ct ais. vs. r. Cole. |
A surviving husband, holding under |
the law as usufructuary, cannot be
called upon for an account Of adminis-
Sheriff, and sureties. A sheriff Of a
different parish from the one in which
the suit is instituted cannot be required
to serve civil process in his own parish
which has emenated from the. parish
where the suit was instituted, without
being paid in advance the fees estab-
lished by law for such service; notwith-
standing a deposit of ten dollars with
the clerk in the parish where the suit
began, and Notwithstanding he was
authorized to draw on New Orleans
merchant for his fees. In cases like
this deposit must also be made with
the Clerk where papers are to be served,
and failure to serve will not make the
sheriff responsible for the loss of a debt
by prescription ensuing from such
failure.
J. w. Jones vs.. Parish OF Caddo.
Plaintiff recognized his successor in
office, and the authority Of the Police
Jury to appoint him. Plaintiff claims
he was legally in Office all the while.
He has no legal right to set TIP objec-
tons of this kind now. Judgment for
plaintiff, by agreement, for $66l SO;
plaintiff paying costs.
Looney VS.. Sheppard, No. 43s. Judg-
ment affirmed.
Same vs.. Same, No. 456. Judgment
affirmed.
State ca rel. Vaughn Dist Atty, VS..
S. II. Richardson. The Mayor of Ho-
mer has Il salary Of $500 with no other
fees but the charter provides tie shall
also act as justice Of the peace. Tho
court below held that the amount in
dispute did not exceed $500, and the
suit was dismissed for want of jurisdic-
ton. Plaintiff claimed that the Mayor
| is entitled to fees as justice Of the peace,
Notwithstanding the words of the char
ter that his salary as Mayor is fixed at
$500 and no more. The Court held that
this construction of the charter is un-
tenable, and affirm the judgment of the
lower court.
Succession Of Mary Gee. The APP
pointment OF the Public Administrator
to administer was erroneous; there
were no debts against the succession !;
heirs were represented and clamorous
to be put in possession. 1t was not Il
vacant succession. Judgment reversed.
| NJ. s. Kinnebrew vs.. Cooksey ct al.
judgment affirmed.
J. II. Scott VS.. D. c. Davis ct al; F..
b. Davis, garnishee. Judgment affirm
cd, Diminishing the suit, the seizure he
ing imperiectly made.
JUSTICE wYLy.
y. l.. Slack, admir-, vs.. !. =. Ray,
assessor and collector of Monroe. In
this case the plaintiff enjninel the sale
of certain property for city taxes,
because the city had not power, after
giving due notice, to collect taxes and
impose penalties, and because section
% of the charter was not covered by
the title. Held, that the words in the
title, sto provide for the government
Of the city Of Monroe" covered section,
p, which conters upon the City govern
mcnt power to collect taxes by compul-
sorry process, and that this power is not
inconsistent with the Constitution
either of the State or of the United
States. Injunction dissolved.
John and Charles Chatfe rs, Mrs. T..
w. Wartie!d; w. ]. q. Baker, inter-
venor. Baker contracted Il debt with
plaintiffs for Mrs. Wilson, depositing
defendants note as collateral, there
being IL written agreement to this effect.
Mrs. Wilson, went into bankruptcy,
subsequently, before Baker whom She
had married. Baker plead prescrip-
ton, as the Indebtedness was an open
account; cNtinguishmcnt of the debt
by bankruptcy of Mrs. Baker (formerly