New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-26
COURT RECORD.
THURSDAY, JUNE %, 1874.
Superior District Court.

Superior District Court.
Thomas Warren VS.. Citizens Bank.-Ac-
ZION Tor commission Of four per cent on a
sale of property for $1,000 on which the title
could not be made good by defendant.
Sealed verdict rendered
Superior Criminal Court.
State VS.. Henry Anderson, ENLIGHTENMENT;
plea of not guilty.
State VS.. Jesse Woods and Henry Hamil-
ton, murder; Jury out.
First District Court.
INFoRMATIONs FILED.
Assault and battery. etc.-Annie Clenet,
Carrie Lee, Dennis Curran, James Clark,
William Davis, Henry johnson
Larceny-Henry Anderson, Alfred DurelI,
Eugene Pierre.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Henry Anderson, Carrie Lee and Annie
Clenet.
Entering. etc.-Daniel Lotspur, eighteen
months in Penitentiary.
Assault and battery-Annie Clenet, eight
days in Parish Prison, to date from day of
first confinement.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de-
cision:
b. NJ. johnson vs.. BlakemOre & CO.
This suit is brought ON a sight draft for
$S642 20, drawn by N. B. Adams to the
order of plaintiff on Messrs. Blakemore e.
Co., of this city. 1t was dated at Shreve-
port, Louisiana, May l3, 1874. Payment
was refused and it was protested.
Blakemore & Co., the drawees, except,
and allege that plaintiffs petition discloses
no cause of auction. The cause is now be-
fore the court on this exception alone.
1t was urged by defendants counsel that
where the drawee of draft or check refuses
to accept, no action lies against him on the
draft or check, and in support Of this prin-
ciple he cited Bovce vs. Edwards, Peters,
l22; Kent, p. IS, note 4; Story on Bills,
section %; l Parsons on Bills and Notes,
33l; 10 johnson, 2l5, and 10 Wallace, l54,
all of which directly or indirectly affirm the
correctness of the proposition: The argu
ment of the learned counsel was replete
with critical learning, and indicative OF
vigilant professional research. 1t was in
structive to the court and exhaustive of the
principle involved as commented on by the
authorities.
The real question, however, is not one
of law. but of fact. Admitting the fact
assumed, that is, that there was no &C
ceptance by the drawees (Blakemore &
Co J, and the authorities amount to judicia
demonstration.
1t therefore becomes necessary to settle
the question, as to whether the allegations
of the petitioner amount to an avernent O
acceptance of the draft As to the pur
poses of the exception, they are taken to b'
true. quote from the petition:
Petitioner further represents that salt
n. B. Adams had full power and authority
from said drawees tdefeDdantsl to draw OF
them for all the purposes Of said draft, ant
defendants had promised to pay and accep
his said drafts; and that said draft herein
| was drawn within and under said authOrit.
from defendants, and was acquired by peti
| toner in the usual course of business on tn
! faith and credit of said power and authorit,
granted to said N. B. Adams by defendants
and their promise to accept and pay tn
| same"
| If these allegations are to be considere'
! as true, there remains no doubt that the de
PENDANTS had virtually accepted the draf
to all intents and purposes. The exception
must therefore fail, for it is valid only o.
the hypothesis that there was no accept
(, ance. Story, 2l9; c. C. Rep; Nesbitt VI
Galbraith, 3 A., $50; 10 An, $40; Is A., 367