New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-31
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, MARCH 80, 1874.
United States Supreme COurt.


error, VS.. Marv Med. Williams ct ALL
error to the Supreme Court of the State o
Louisiana. Mr.. Justice Field delivered tn
opinion of the court affirming the iudgmen
OF the SAID Supreme Court in the cause
| with costs.
No. l12. Thomas J. Burke, plaintiff il
error, VS.. Louise Tregre ct al.-In error t.
the Supreme Court Of the State of Louis
lana. Mr.. Justice Davis delivered the Opin
ion of the court affirming the Judgment O
the said Supreme Court in this cause, will
| costs.
! No. 25l. Ethan Allen, plaintiff in error
VS.. John Tarleton ct al. In error to the
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
Mr.. Chief Justice Waite announced the de
cision Of the court, dismissing the writ Of
| error in this cause, with costs.
The following were decided on the
| twenty fourth:
No. 224 Merchants Mutual Insurance
Company vs.. Barring Brothers.-Error to
| the Circuit Court of Louisiana. In this
case the insurable interest Of the defend.
ants was on bOttomry bond on the bark
Fanny Ealer; and a. the vessel arrived at
the port of destination, New Orleans. the
court was requested to charge that the
| arrival terminated the risk, and there could
be no recovery; that it is only when the
vessel insured is lost that the assured on a
bottomry bond can recover. The court was
also requested to charge that the company
was not bound to tender back the premium
of insurance before availing itself Of any
defense against the validity of the policy,
or for its avoidance for subsequent cause.
The refusal of the court to make these
charges was here assigned as error. and it
was commended that in case OF partial loss
and general average the holders of the bot
tomry interest could not recover.
The onnrf ajDo6 the rt,ljpU ha1nw and
hold that the assured were entitled to re-
cover. Mr. Justice Cliff Jrd delivered the
opinion.
No. 2l2. Stevenson vsIWilliams ct ais
Error to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
This was an application for the removal Of
the cause to the federal court, made after
final Judgment rendered IN the case. The
court below ruled the motion too late, and
that decision is here affirmed, the court
holding that the act of Congress Of March,
1867. under which the removal was asked,
only authorizes removal when application
is made before the final hearing or trial of
the suit: and that this clearly means before
final judgment in the court of original
jurisdiction where the suit is brought.
Whether it does not mean still more, before
the bearing of the trial is commenced,
which is followed by such judgment. say the
court, may be questioned; but it is uD-
necessary to determine that question in this
court. Mr.. Justice Field delivered the
opinion.
The following was decided on the TWEEN
ty-sixth:
No. 252 United States vs.. Heron ct al
Error to the Circuit Court for the southern
district of Louisiana. This was an action
against one Collins, as principal, and Her
ron and others as sure ties on an official
bond. The judgment was against the sure
ties, but in favor Of the principal, on the
ground of his discharge in bankruptcy. The
government brought the case here, where
it is insisted that broad as the language of
the bankrupt act is in reference to the dis
charge of the bankrupt, it still does not bar
debt due the United States. According to
a familiar principle of law, 1T is said, the
United States, not being mentioned by
name in the act, they are not bound by it,
and this, it is claimed, is the uniform con
struction of similar bankrupt acts in Eng
land and in this country. The principle
contended for in this case was affirmed by
the decision in the case 203 Dollar Savings
Bank vs. United States, decided and re-
ported at this term.
United States Circuit Court.
Hall g. Lisle VS.. Mrs. E. Baker ct al
Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for
1888
Crescent Mutual insurance Company VS..
S. Gottgehen.-Verdict and Judgment for
plaintiff for $ll53 SO.
H. N. Frisbie was qualified as United
States Commissioner.
superior District Court.
Crescent City Gaslight Company vs. New
Orleans Gaslight Company, State of Louis
lana and city of New Orleans intervenors.-
Arguments continued.
First District Court.
INFoRMATIONs FILED.
Larceny-Sam Mitchell.
Assault and batterv-John Gray, two
charges; Tom Boston, John Oriole, G. W.
Miller.
Assault with dangerous weapon-Pat
Russell.
False Imprisonment-G. W. Miller, Eu-
,ene Payzant.
TRUE BILLS.
Forgery and obtaining money on false
,retenses-Felix Ducros. Isaac Landman.
Oppression in office.-W. w. Mccullough.
Assault and battery.-Joseph Parmion.
Larceny.-Cbarles Deperto, Thomas Buh-
er, Gerhagan.
CHANGE OF VENUE.
State vs.. Alexander w. kinchen.-Mur-
ier Transferred to Livingston.
NoLLE PROsEQUI ENTERED.
State VS.. Jack Heating .--Obtaining money,
tic.
Three hundred and fifty names we're or
lered TO be drawn from the jury boz, by |
he sheriff, for the ensuing term.
PLEADED NOT GUILTY.
Entering dwelling-house, etc-John |
Larceny-George Williams.
SENTENCED,
John Gillmore.-Larceny. Nine months.
William Ray, alias Lnson.-Burglary
our years.
William Ward. - Larceny. Eighteen
lonths.
Second District Court.
Suces sions of P. H. MOuseaux, Mrs. Eliza
|uplessis and Arabella Olson, wife OF Ed
ard Web. opened.
Angela and LAVA Angelo Langa pray to
e emancipated.
Fourth District Court.
Judge Lynch rendered the following de-
sions:
James Handle & Co. VS.. Green g. Randle
al.-Judgment for defendants.
j. L. Majors VS.. j. w. Cannon.-New trial
ranted.
Armand Pile VS.. recorder of mortgages
Orleans.-Rule to erase mortgage result
e from notes in favor of Union Bank
ade absolute.
John Grant VS.. G. c. Sebastien. New
ial refused.
l