New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-02-08
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY. FEBRUARY Z, 1871.
First District AOarfs

First District Cosrf.
TRUE BILLS.
State rs. Francis Garrell.--l. Assault with
q dangerous weapon .. Assault and battery.
STATE vs.. Brown & McAlpine.-False i'm
prisoument and assault and battery.
ARRAIGSED.
Wounding less than mayhem-yack Ham
naoap, George w Nash. Plea OF not guilty.
Larcenv-David Allen, Johanna johnson.
Frank b. Parker. Plea OF not guilty.
Malicious observation-disclosures hiDg. Plea
Of not guilty. c
Carving concealed weapou-Ssrah Cor
don. Plea Of not guilty.
sENTENCED.
Assault ard battery-Peter Brane. one
month; Charlotte Mitchell, one month.
MISREPRESENTATION Lewis, one DAY.
New sRYAL.
State ys. Richard Evans.-Bribery. etc.
second Districs Court.
Successions Of Jacob Welsey and Con-
stance KILL opened.
Fourth Distvics Court.
The following decision was rendesed oy
Judge Lynch:
s. Wells, administrator OF A.. Wheiess.-
Plaintiff, widow of Wheless, alleges owner
ship of certain ZEAL estate, purchased
during the community, with her own para
phernal funds. May -. 1869; that 1t was
illegally in yentOried in the succession. DE.
fandant files a general denial. John Ander'
son and Daniel Pratt interviewed. Ander-
son alleges q debt of Wheless Of $S75l ~
and slSO3 "A for drafts accepted by Whe.
less, now merged in q Judgment on appeal
to the Supreme Court; that he was agent OF
Wheless, and advanced him the money,
suit FOR which is now in the Second District
Court. Pratt alleges q guarantee OF 900
on note OF $4,000 transferred to him by
Wheless: that he can realize nothing on 1t;
that a community existed between Nheless
and plaintiff; that he acquired the property
claimed by her by funds Of the community;
that it is liable for this debt, contracted
during the marriage. Deeds OF sale to Mrs
Wheless April 4, 1867, Of property in
Nashville, for s1o31; OF that properly IRON o1
Wheless and wife, dated August IL, 1868
for $4,000; and OF the property in question
to plaintiff for $1,000, one-third cash and
three notes of SI555 J5, May -. 1863.
Plaintiff purchased the Nashville property
| with money received from her father; was
married in Alabama in 1855; no marriage
! contract or separation OF property existed;
her brother managed her affairs ID NASH
Vile she herself here. Her money was de-
| but not subject to his order. The cashier
corroborates this. Her brothers statement
agrees with hers. Her bank account was
distinct from that Of her husband. The
general principle of law Is that all property
ACQUIRED during marriage falls into the
community. 1t require, evidence outside
of the bill of sale to remove this presump-
ton. Taking title in her name Is not sui.
ficient. 1t is clear she had paraphernal
la~ How, ont a
she purchased this property with 1t: that
she paid a portion of the price after her
husbands death; that she paid the whole
price. The act of sale Yecites this. 1t was
hers because acquired from her fathers
estate &c. G. 1884. and extra dotai be.
cause il forms no part OF the dowry ~. T..
$3.50. 1t is not community property. be-
cause not profit from any funds adj
lninisterei by Wheless. nor produce
with community funds &c. c. :l02.s The
presumptions of interyenors are thus dis
spated. Property purchased with para.
phtrnal funds is not liable for debts OF the
! community. Metcalf. vs.. Clark, An, 1885,
! She could prove that fact by parol. if it
were not stated in the act. 1t Is not neces
sary to prove she had the actual adminis'
! traton at a time she expended q part. with
her husbands consent, in the purchase OF
,
| the proceeds Of paraphernal property is but
| q corrallary OF the right to administer or to
! ALLEVIATE. Ellis vs.. Rush, ) An, ZIG. The fact
| of depositing the money with Wheless q
| Rush can not tell against her. The firm Is
! distinct from the partners. The money did
! not become her husbands more than that
! of any other depositor. Judgment that the
property in suit is that Of the plaintiff : that
| it was wxongfully inventOried in the sue
] 81 and lilo hIa, ira 6ahtC- n
! teryenors dismissed.
fifth District Csuri.
! Judge Cullon has rendered the following
I decision:
/ Abram Rosenberg VS.. Lssseps 4 PardO.~-
Contract OF hire as gauger for one year
! from November /, 1872, for $1,000. Plaintiff
I was discharged April I. 1913. Prayer for
1888 81. Defense alleges discharge was tor
neglect of business and untaithtulness; that
| he sold his services to others. April =. 1913
plaintiff notified defendant that he was
ready 10 comply with his contract, and held
! them responsible for his salary till hovem
I Der /. April 5. they anwered that he was
! discharged for neglect and absence from
work. Lesseps testified plaintiff was alb
I sent great deal, and made manlfests Tor
| other parties. Plaintiff says absence was
caused ON account of his wife's sickness;
! that no never neglected defendants
business, and was always on manu-, LOOK
manifests for others before working hours;
| never complained of before April 7. Pardo
says plaintiff did neglect his business; the
| house did not find it out till the close OF the
season. G. c. 1913, 2i79 and Hen. Dig. 1920
are referred to. together with Hyde q
| Grigsby. II L. $40; Oxnard VS.. Locke Is l..
| i49; Is l.. 49,. The question is, was the
| plaintiff guilty of such neglect as warranted
his discharge. II so his otter to perform his
| part after he was discharged did not put
them in default. 2. Pars. Cont. 81; Gan
dell vs.. Poutigney, Comp. 35; Turner VS..
| Mason IA NJ. j. W. H.. In all contracts
there is necessarily an implied, If not not an
| expressed promise, that one party Will pay
for services rendered and that the other
| will use due care and diligence in doing
| that which he is employed to do. 1he
| plaintiff was Tenlss at times, and had his
| employers discharged him at once they
would not haze been responsible
for the residue OF his gears salary.
| There are numerous contradictions
| between Lesseps and Roseberg and the
other witnesses say nothing positive as to
| the particular instances OF neglect. The
| failure of Lesseps to act on the previous
| directions of plaintiff prevents an inquiry
| into them There Is no evidence going to
show negligence or untalthfulness on
| plaintiffs part at the precise time he was
discharged: Judgment for plaintiff for
$500, he having RENTED the balance.
Miss Emily Faithful intends delivering
her lecture on her American experiences IN
all the cities and principal towns OF Eng