New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-09
COURT RECORD.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1874.
Supreme Court,

| supreme Court.
Thomas Fl. Franklin, of Ascension. wa
admitted to practice.
Succession of Hampton Elliott-Argu
ments continued, the rule limiting time o
counsel having been relaxed.
| superior District Court.
John Langles We. New Orleans and Car
ro!lton rallroad.-Supplement petition
| alleges error of counsel in laying damage!
at 900, which was the amount proposed tt
the company as compromise and refused
! and claims $4,000.
State vs. Mrs. Hapertine and FIVE Others
Rule for contempt taken by Assistant At
tOrney General Dibble for failure to close
| places of business on order OF court for non
| payment OF licenses. ReturDable April Is
| State VS.. Charles Clinton ct al-On mo-
| tion of E. c. Billings the Injunction in this
case is dissolved as to the $4,000 claimed
by the mover as fees for defending the fund.
Ing bill, the Attorney General reserying the
right Of appeal.
| John T. Ludeling, Chief Justice, Va. An.
| tome Dubuclet, Treasurer r-Relator alleges
| he drew, signed and indorsed his warrant
for quarterly salary, ending March 81, for
$2oOO. which the Treasurer refused to pay;
| that he believes there is sufficient funds in
the treasury, and prays for a mandamus.
Order to show cause April issued.
Defendant answer ADMITS relator to be
Chief Justice; that under article seventy
fve OF the constitution, and act No. SO of
1871, he is entitled to the salary; that the
act is unrepealed, but doubts, from the pre.
vaiiing custom in the department, and from
the fact that there is not sufficient appro.
prlatlon to pay all the judges, whether he
should pay in full.
Mandamus made peremptorv.
First District Court.
ARRAIGNED
larceny. H. Williams, H. Harris, Sa
rah Jones. Plea of not guilty.
Assault with intent, etc.-Felix Mercier,
Nathaniel Williams. Plea of not guilty.
Assault and battery-John Lee, Moses
johnson. Plea of guilty of assault
NOLLE PROsEQUI ENTERED.
Libel-Wallace Wood.
Assault and battery-John Birmingham.
Larceny-Charies Hughes, Thomas c.
Hellr0n. Atfidav Wit dismissed
INFORMATIOSs FILED.
Larceny-Charles Williams, John Harper
John Havely. Bill Williams. Noah Jones.
Amelia Marshall, Mrs. Pierre Francois, Mary
Hughes, John Newton.
Breaking and entering, etc.-JOhn Har-
per, Peter Lynn, George Powers.
Carrying concealed weapon-Jules Lana
bere.
Assault and battery-Lucien Bernard J.
A. d'HennecOurt. Louis Rodgers, John Fl.
West, Gallus Farmer, Edwa ed Warmouget,
William Saches. L. E. Corbin, c. Snider.
John Woods, Joseph Kreiger, Lott Hughes,
j. c. Pelee
second District Court.
SUGGESTIONS of Samuel Mcconnell and
Ma gdalena Weiser opened.
Charles F. and Lucien Coste pray to be
Fourth District Court.
Judge Lynch rendered the following de-
cision;
Edward Hayes vs. st. Charles Street |
Railroad Company.-Suit for damages for
the killing Of plaintiffs son by earelessness !
Of defendants employe. Peremptory ex-
ceptiOn that no cause of action is disclosed
IN the ground that it is not alleged de-
fendants could have prevented the act;
Palfrey VS.. Kerr, 8 n. s., SOB; Ware VS..
Barataria and Lafourche Canal Company.
3 L., 1885, c. c.. 1920. The article limiting
he liability applies to natural persons
he court did not decide that the corpora
ion must be shown to have been able to
prevent the act and did not do it. When
N agent OF a corporation does an act under
direction OF his employers which causes
lamase they will be responsible; Etting
8. Commercial Bank, Rob- 459; Walling
8. Shreveport, 5 A., 660; Carmanty VS..
1exican Cult Railroad Company, ID, 7O3;
TART VS.. New Orleans and Carrollton rail
DAD, l Rob. lSl. Exception dismissed
Fifth District Court.
Judge Culiom rendered the following de-
isiOn:
A. Rochereau g. Co. vs. Martha A. Ca
on.-Defendant executed three mortgage |
otes to plaintiffs, one for $500, and two
'r S2OOO. On the latter suit was entered, ,
nd the property ordered to be sold March
1874. On that day Henry L. Stone, of
|aS-achnSa-+a tiIaI fhirI oll l
lg purchase of the plaintiffs of the first :
ote. with credit Of 500 for $1,000 by his
gent, Roberts. Plaintiffs allege receiving
1000 OF Roberts, who was known to them |
J the agent of Mrs. Cation, in payment of
le note; that they knew nothing of Stone. :
Roberts purchased for Stone, the plain !,
It's can not compete with him as to its en- 1
re payment. Nentress VS.. his creditors, Z
A. 33l; Saltzman VS.. his creditors, 3 r.
3. The thing sold and the price existed i.
Ithout dispute, but did the aggregate
entium, the consent necessary to the salel /
&. 2i39, 1878, 1905, 1915. 1t was .
,alnst plaintiffs interest that the note q
ould be purchased. They say the money :,
as received as a payment.
The case of Gernon VS.. McCan, % A. 81, f
different. as the note there was not ma a
tension was refused Mrs. Cation. :"
hen Roberts. known to plaintiffs as her b
,ent, rendered $1,000 it was fair for them Il
presume hs acted for her and not for h
one, whom they did not know. Payment
not only delivery of a sum of money, but
rtormance of an obligation. Bleodworth C
. Jacobs. A, 26. Mrs. Cation was ob- n
red to pay. Plaintiffs had no more reason :,
sell than Stone to pay. He was under =.
obligation to do so. He has suffered a IL
'ong through his agent by which Mrs Vi
lton has paid her note. Plaintiffs had no n
Owledge of his interest or intention. / :,
ignorant of any law which gives to the u
rty furnishing money for the payment of
tebt the rights of the creditor thus paid. Ie
Ute VS.. his creditors, 6 n. S., 1863. Stone =,
not give the money to pay the note. nor "
plaintiffs consent to sell it to him or the
'rtgage rights they had The one who
used the misunderstanding must suffer
serving Stones rights, the opposition is fir
the sheriff to pay plaintiffs. y
SOufhpru Malls | CO