New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-17
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, MARCH 10. 1874.
Irr;t.a s.ates Circuit Court.

| United States Circuit Court.
United States va. HadnOt ct al.-Verdict;
| Alfred C. Lewis, not guilty. The jury be-
ing unable to agree as to the other prison
ers, were discharged.
| David Stern ct al. vs.. Charles Clinton ct
al.
LL Macauley vs. same. Kennard, Howe
| & Prentiss, and JAS Mcconnell for COM
| plainants VIM. H Hunt. Semmes & Mott,
and Billings a. Hughes for defendants.
| The rule in these cases to show cause why
| an Injunction pendente lite should not be
| granted, came up. Arguments heard.
| supreme Court.
| Adjourned to Monday, twentv-third in
slant, when decisions will be read.
Superior District Court.
Crescent City Live Stock Landing and
Slaughterhouse Company VS.. John Barba-
zou-Petition alleges defendant has violat-
| ed plaintiffs charter in the first section by
| Strengthening forty-eight beeves at penalty
| of $3.50 each; in the second section by yard
| ing the same number at other places than
| the company's yards, at $3.50 each: in the
| fifth section by keeping slaughterhOuse
| twenty four weeks at the corner of Prieur
| and Oswego streets and Strengthening two
beeves a week there at 500 each in the
seventh section by not paying the com
pany's perquisite of 81 per head; claims
| damage of S2S. SiS, and asks for an iniunc-
| ton which is issued on bond of $500
Crescent City Gaslight Company VS.. New
| Orleans Gaslight Company, Intervention of
city of New Orleans.-Intervenors supple
mental petition alleges that the city has the
| right without any legislative grant or au-
thority whatever. to make and vend gas
and gaslight within her corporate limits;
that the grant of exclusive right to the
plaintiff being a monopoly. is in violation
of the constitution, and prays Judgment &C.
eording to the original petitiono
Fret District Courts
NoLLH PRosEoUI ENTERED.
Assault. and battery - John Garr.gap.
James Regain.
INFORMATION f3.ED.
Selling lottery tickets not authorized,
etcs-R. Mascara, j. ID. Lefevras
TRUE BILLS.
State vs.. William Egan.-Emoe,zfemepe.
State~s. Henry Stigo.-Perjurv.
PLEADED NOT GUILTY.
False Observation-Disclosures Downing.
Perjury-Dennis Downing.
Assault and battery-Lou!se Johnson.
Mrs. Henry Tete.
Larceny-Belle Jackson. Charles Focks,
George Constantine Paul o. Taylor. Henry
Brooks, Joe Paul, Joe Hunt
MrsTRIAL.
Safe VS.. Henry Fostecs Obtaining
money under false pretenses.
vERDICTS.
State vs. Tony Long.-Asssult and bat
Gerry. Guilty; recommended to mercys
State vs.. William Taylor.-Assault and
battery. Guilty; recommended to mercve
State VS.. Jack flanagan. Wounding
fess than mayhem. Not guilty.
State vs.. George We Nash.-WoundinG
less than mayhem. Not guiltyo
SENTENCED
State 50 Aleck Smith.s.Larsenyo Two
months IN Parish Prisono
Second District COurfe
SUGGESTIONS of Marcelne Schxnaydre.
Joseph A. Terzula and Nictoriue Marie
Ghristien, deceased wife of James Alaban,
opeSedo
Fourth District Court.
Sudge lynch has rendered the following
decisions
Terenc. Dosie Is. William A. Belt &C.,
Petitioner clai,Aed 349l damages tor that
july 10. 1879 defepdantsS float, driven by
"A ewpleye of the irme was run against
bin, Causing his leg to,be crushed by the
gross Neglect Of the enpioSe. Tho float was
owned BY Samuel II. Boil. the book-kaeper.
ADD not : member Of the Grin. =. He can not
BE- held liable 10 the present action. The
firm employed the float. as did other parties.
1t $40 per week. Tue master il Liable for
SUo &CN Ok ui0 0SE 0Qts Stth COu0 AS~Ve
Peyton 70. A,ohsrds !! A. g.: but 10
LACQUER ~. Pointer, : Barn. end cres..
ST., 1t va decided that the 0vnsr And not
the hirer va responsibis for tho nsgii.
renee of the goodman. and this u tho epia.
ion Of the later authorities. The relation OF
master and servant cid not subeist between
the defendant firm and the .irs5ma Peti.
tioa d;smissed. With reservation Of plain.
GH's rirhtA against Samuel H. Bell.
kAfI. A.Si Nov a.
band. In this case defendant having re-.
fused TO pay the Aliaohy awarded by she
court Of 81 50 per week vas comWisse3 TO-
tie Parish Prison tor con.empte
Fifth District Courts
Judge Cullom has gendered she following
decision:
David l. Adams VS.. johnson & Goodrich.
Plaintiff sold Mason Pitcher September 6.
1872, in New Orleans, a sugar mill and ma
chinery for his plantation in Caddo for his
note OF &22l3 80, due January l. 1874 Privi-
lege vas recorded September ID, 1879. The
| machinery vac deiiyered September II.
The plaintiff alleged the machinery had
become irnmovable BY destination: that de-
PENDANTS seizsd Pitchers plantation and
prayed for separate eDeraisement, and that
the ahe9it be ordered to retain sufficient IN
his hands to satisfy the note, ana that he be
decree6 q Priority of right. The order on
the sheriff was granted Jane q, 1873, and
was obeyed except that, by agreement be-
tween Goodrich and plaintiffs attorney.
July So 1878, Goodrich was to retain $4,000
subject to the decision of this court. Feb
ruary % 1874, judgment was rendered for
Adams for $22l3 50, with interest, lien and
privilege. The seizure at suit of johnson
& Goodrich was made May 26, 1873 and
the separate. appraisement OF $1,000
made July 3, the same day as the
agreement of Goodrichs This agreement
should have ended the litigation
| when Judgment was rendered for Adams.
But defendants counsel contend these was
no appraisement according to law; that the
privilege was not recorded on the day the
sale was made, and because the recording
does not sufficiently identity the property.
There was an appraisement made July D,
1873, and the sherltf's process verbal shows
no infOrmality. If there were a technical
informality in not including an acre of
ground, it is waived by Goodrich's agree
ment. The privilege was recorded soon
enough to satisfy the requirements OF the
law. 1t was valid from the date of record
| ing, G. c. 1913 and as the machinery at that
date was on not Pitchers place, zone acre"
would not properly be included. Confusion
with the balance of the property was utter
ly out OF the question. The object Is to as
certain what it Will bring, Whipple vs..
Hartzberger. II A.. 475, and the appraise-
ment established it. The law does not de-
mand that a privilege obtained by con-
tract in New Orleans shall be recorded the
same day 80 miles away. Len non cogit I'D
impossjbilia.
The unique syllogisms of counsel that
being required to be recorded on the day
acquired, and not being 50 because of the
distance to the place of recording from the
place OF the contract would prevent the
vendor from having any privilege. The
appraisement seems to have been made ac-
cording to the Code of Practice. The own
ersnip, till the sale, was in Pitcher, and
Adams claim was good against him. The