The New Orleans bulletin., 1874-12-18

made out against one of the five, with the ex-
pectation that it would be paid by Chas. 1.
| Howard. for the Louisiana Jockey Club,
which, it appears, had previously pald 1or
dinners for some members OF the press a1Ofe-
said. The testimony of E. F. Denechaud Is
to the effect that some time previous 10 tae
9Th Of April. 1873, the date Of the bill in
ouestion. Cbas. r. Howard, who was then,
and Still is. Vice President of the Louisiana
Jockey Club. directed said Denechaud to fur
nish the members of the New Orleans press
with refreshment whenever they might wish
to enjoy the same, he (Howard) promising to
nav the bills ): that under that promise
of Howard, Denechaud furnished the
repast, the cost Of which was the claim sued
on before the Third Justices Court; t"at
Howard promised to pay the bill, provided it
were approved by the member OF the press
against whom the bill was made out. Chas.
4. Howard, on the other hand, emphatically
denies that he ever made such promises, OF
ever assumed any responsibility for any din
ners or nourishment furnished or to be fur
nished to said press officials; that, though he
paid some bills of the kind alluded to, he did
so entirely as the Vice President and agent OF
said club, under it's instructions; that as to
the bill in question, he never promised, but
refused to pay it, whether as in his individual
capacity, or as Vice President OF said Jockey
Club.
Cross words passed between the plaintiff
and defendent in regard to the payment OF
the bill. Denechaud soon after commenced
the suit referred to, in the Third Justices
Court.
The plaintiff in that suit and the Constable
of said court knew, or ought to have known,
that Chas T. Howard was then President OF
the Louisiana Lottery Company in this city:
The Office Of that company IS IN central
location, only few squares distant from the
Third Justices Court room. Mr. Howard
place of business is as well known as tnat OF
any other business man in New Orleans. HIS
domicil or family residence is at Biloxi, Mis-
sissippi He is shown to be absent from the
city occasionally, but only for few days at
time. A citation or notice of judgment, If
left at his office, would be soon in his hands.
It would have been less trouble for the
Constable to have left the court papers at the
office of Chas. I. Howard, than at No. 132
Prvtania street, even if the latter had un-
doubtedly been his domicil. 1t is not shown
that the plaintiff in this cause, individually,
has profited by the complimentary advertise
ments which the New Orleans press had pub
lished in regard to the Louisiana Jockey Club,
so as to make it his duty to reciprocate, by
paying for dinners for the eulogists OF that
club out of his private funds. Denechaud
for the aforesaid claim. The Louisiana Jockey
Club was incorporated long before the date OF
the bill furnished by Denechaud. II the lat
ter had provided the dinner above mentioned,
under the authority Of said club, the club
would be liable for its payment. Charles L.
Howard is man of large means; he was sued
for mere trihe; no proper citation was served
upOu him to inform him of Denechaud's de-
mand, and enable him to make his defense.
No notice of judgment was given to him per-
sor ally, or left for him at his place OF busl-
ness, but in hot haste citations and interroga-
tories were issued to three banking institu-
tions. as garnishees expected to have funds
belong to him, and thus striking an illegal
and unwarrantable, if not o malicious blow at
his credit and standing as business man.
From careful consideration OF all the facts in
this case am forced to the conclusion that
the plaintiff has suffered material injury in be-
ing compelled to employ counsel and by loss OF
time in attending court, not to count the
anxiety and humiliation caused to him by
proceedings had against him in the Third
Justices Court, through the instrumentality
of defendants herein; and that the said Chas.
r. Howard is consequently entitled to dam
ages.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and de-
creed that there be judgment IN favor OF the
plaintiff, and against the defendants IN solitt0
for the sum of $50 and costs of suit. 1t IS
further ordered that the demand OF said Wm
Egan, Constable, as against the said +. +.
Denechaud, in warranty, be dismissed.