New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-29

at x3OOU. Ihe defendant answers Cnat ne
never leased the premises, and that his
father Samuel Fasnacht, who signed a lease
for him as his agent, did SO without author
ity. He contesses that he bargained for the
lease of the property, but that he contract
ed for his father. The evidence discloses
the fact that the defendant did contract Tor
the lease of the property, and it does not
show that he apprized PLAINTIFFS agent,
with whom he contracted, that he was act
ing for his father. verbal understanding
was reached between the agent OF plaintiff
and Robert Fasuacht, upon which the lat
ter acted.
He and his father were on good terms,
and the latter took tuli and entire posses
sion under this verbal agreement. Kent bills
were presented to Robert Fasnacht, which
he paid, still making no mention of his
agency. Unfortunately, he and his father
subsequently disagreed and became alien
ated from each other, but not until after
the lease had been signed by the father as
the agent of the son. Robert Fasnacht now
contends that, although he did make the
contract of lease. he did it as the agent
of the father. The father signed the lease
as the agent for the son. Two questions
arise from this condition of the case:
l. What is the consequences to an agent,
if he stipulate with another party without
disclosing his capacity and the principal for
whom he acts.
.. What is the quantum OF damages suf-
fered.
First-"A person contracting as agent
will be personally responsible we're, at the
time of making the contract, he does not
disclose the fact OF his agency; but he
treats with the other party as being himself
the principal: for in sucha case, it follows,
irresistibly, that the credit is given to him
on account of the contract" Story on
GUS authorities there cited. l Par. on
Contracts. q. 64. There is no proof that
the plaintiffs agent or the plaintiff her
self knew that Robert Fasnachr was acting
for his father at the time the verbal agree
ment for the lease was made and the prem
ises were delivered. Story on Agency, sec.
263, and the authorities cited; Bedford VS..
Jacobs. a n. S.. 52S; Hopkins vs.. Lacouture.
Al. 66. 1t was his duty to inform plaintiff,
or her agent, with whom he contracted and
before the contract was perfected, that he
was contracting for the father, Samuel
Fasnacht. Mott VS.. Papet, Is L., 306;
Campbell vs.. Nicholson, II r., 423; Sere vs.
Faures, Is An. lS9.
Second-As to the quantum of damages
| 1t it very evident FROM the evidence in this
| case that the leased. premises were greatly
| neglected, abused, despolled and damaged
| during the existence OF the lease. The as
| been referred to jury. My estimate must ne
cessarily be largely conjectural. Some of the
| damages claimed must be rejected, because
they were the result of neglect on the part
| of plaintiff herself, which under express
| law in such cases made and provided,
she might have very we'll avoided.
l allude to repairs made necessary
by natural and ordinary causes. c. c.,
! 27OO She demands $1,000 damages and
nv opinion is that $500 will repay her
| for the actual losses suffered. The author
| of The Pleasures Of Hope" has charm
| ingly sung Of the delights of the "bamlet
shade" as affOrding ''health in the breeze
| and shelter in the storm Another has
| sung Of the "Orchard. the meadow, the
deep tangled Wildwood etc, and common
observation and daily experience teach us
that while the poet derives musical in
spiration from these sources, the man of
the hamlet shade, the orchards, tangled
| wildwoOds and ''contiguity of shade" 1t
is really impossible to estimate the quantum
of damages to property arising from the
| removal and destruction of fruit trees.
| shrubs, flowers, etc. OF course the alb
sence of such things renders it less desira-
BILE in every respect There must be judg-
ment for $500, with five per cent inter
est from judicial demand
|
| Petition for writ of habeas corpus, al
leging confinement in default of bond OF
| $1,000 exacted by the Fourth Municipal
Court On a charge of vagrancy.
superior Criminal Court.
NoLLE PROsEQUI ENTERED.
State vs.. Patrick Russell-Assault with
| a dangerous weapon.
State vs. H. Lacoste-Assault and bat
| terry.
| State VS.. Charles Clinton-Neglect O.
duty, false Imprisonment. four charges; as
sault and battery. perjury.
| SENTENCES.
John Smith, larceny, five years III Peni
| tentiary.
Paul Burton, alias Brrdu, robbery, ter
years in Penitentiary.
| First District Court.
INFoRMArIONs FILED.
Assault and battery-Svlvester Harrison
Larceny-Gustave Morel.
NoLLE PRosEoUI ENTERED.
Obtaining money, etc.-Margaret BY.
Larceny-Picayune Smith.
Assault and battery-Ely Williams.
| vERDICTs.
Knowingly receiving stolen goods-PnliIl
Heelzel. Not guilty.
Obtaining money, etc.-John Keenan,
Mistrial.
Assault and battery-Levis Carroll
Mary Jones. Guilty.
Larceny-Mrs. Alf Mayfeld. Not guilty
SENTENCED.
Assault and battery-Charles Scott, Liz
zie Myers. One day each.
l