New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-11-17

plea Of res judicata was not passed upon
A party can not allow his property sold for
debs under judicial process, and then
claim he did not owe the debt which the
property was sold to pay.
No. 1873. John Spaulding, appellant, vs.
J. J. Kreider and the city Of Jefferson
From the Eighth District Court. As It IS
not alleged the defendants were aiding and
abettiDg the rioters, who wounded the
plaintiff. member Of the Metropolitan
police, the pet tition disclOses no cause OF
action. Judgment affirmed.
No. 1896. John A. Hall et ais. ". Louisiana
National Bank. sppellant.-From Fifth DIS
trict Court. Plaintiffs drew on Mobile and de-
posted draft for collection with defendant,
who sent it, with bill Of lsdiug attached, to
Mobile. The goods reached there satur'
day, were taken by drswee that night on
another bill Of lading. The draft was ac'
eepted on Monday. payable in three days.
tanned it, but failed to pay at its expiration.
There was no laches on the part OF tine
Bank Of Mobile. ard consequently none on
that OF defendant. The consignee (drawee)
had possession Of the goods, while the bank
held the bill Of ladlng.
Superior District Court.
Morris Ranger Us. New Orleans and New
Orleans and jackson Railroad Company
Arguments finished.
State ex rel. May Barlow 70. Charles
Clinton, State Auditor.-On felators' petit
tion that she was appointed by Secretary
Of State P. G. DeslODde assistant state
librarian March !. 1874; has duly performed
the duties. and the Auditor refuses TO pay
her her salary of SIS for the month of Oc'
tober, the defendant is ordered to chow
cause November 10 why he should not be
compelled to by the writ Of mandamus.
aunar,np S,pimJna1 6,oupa
yNFoRMAT1ONs FILED.
Breaking and entering-JOhn Williams,
Henry johnson.
Carrying concealed weapons-James
Hunt, Samuel Palmer.
Periury-Peter Phillips.
Grand larceny-Harriet Syphax.
Shooting. etc.-Joseph Clede.
Assault and battery-Thomas killiles. K.
Bridges.
SENTENCE REVERSED.
Joseph Bibb, robbery. The convict hav.
ing been discovered TO be over fifteen years
OF age, the sentence Of seven years in the
House of Refuge was reversed, and one Of
the same time in the Penitentiary imposed.
First Districs Court.
INFoRMATIoNs FILED.
Assault and bsttery-Daniel Brown,
Petty Larcenv-John Williams. Henry
johnson. Leon Davis.
NoLLE PRosEQuf ENTERED.
Assault and bsttery-Calhoun Cage, Reu-
ben Hobbs.
Petty larceny-Frsnk Winston.
SENTENCED.
Petty larceny-Philip Gaines. one month.
Purchasing commodities tor cash and
I l,,Io L., A;onn.;nO of% %hom-Al lfrAA Sf
Marc, two years. suspensiye appeal Al
Fifth District Cours.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de-
| cision:
| E. H. Murrel! vs.. Mrs. Sirena Lion ct
| al.-The petitioner alleges that he rented
| or leased unto Mrs. Lion the store No 81
| Natchez street. for one year from October l,
1 1871, for el05 per month. The lease pro-
| vides that Elf neither party to it gives
| written notice to the other at least one
| month previous to the first of October. 1872,
/ Of his intention not to renew it. the lease
| should be considered as continuing in full
| force for any other year." The lessee gave
1 twelve prOmissory notes for elC5 each, on
| the first OF November, 1871. first of Decem
her, 1871. and on the first of October, 1872.
! So far the stipulatiOns are simple enough.
] but there is one glaripg Inconsistency and
!
have given rise to the material misunder.
standing from which this litigation springs.
| It provides as follows: The lessor "dOes
! hereby lease or let unto the said Mrs. 5.
Lion, for and during the full space and term
| Of twelve months. to commence On the first
! day of October, 1871 and to cease on the
thirty first day of October, 1872, the prem.
ises." etc: The defendant paid the twelve
notes as they fell due, but by the terms OF the
! lease in specifying dates, it was to endure
| thirteen months instead of twelve. There
was error in fixing October 81. 1872, as the
period Of the lease, or there was an error IN
making only twelve votes. The execution
| of the notes shows that it occurred in fixing
October 81, 1872, as the time of the expira-
| ton of the lease. conclude, therefore,
| that it was intended it should expire on
| September 80. 1872, instead Of October 81.
| Otherwise. the lessor would have required
| a note tor the month of October, This was
! q full wears lease. FUlsa demonstrate nor,
| aocet When it expired the lessor could
| have but known that il had terminated by
| the fac. that he had surrendered the last of
| the notes. The lessee was equally well
aware that her lease had expired, because
| she was in possession Of all of them. 1t is
| usual to lease for one year. a1d it is we'll
| known that the rental year cOmmonlC ter
inmates on the thirtieth of September. As
! to when customs are to be considered by the
courts see Halls Reports, PIP. 6O2 and 6l9;
| Smith on Contracts, PIP. 494-6, and Chitty
on Contracts, p. 50. 'All clauses of agree
| ments are interpreted the one by the other,
giving to each the sense that results from
| the entire act" C. C.. 1855. 'When the
| intent Of the parties is doubtful, the con-
| struction put upon it by the manner in
which it has been executed by both or by
I one with the express or implied assent of
| the other, furnishes rule for its interpreta-
| ton" G. c.. 1856: Smith on Contracts, p.
| 467; Sheppard's TouchstOne, p. g.. In fol-
lowing this rule, it is true, it is not always
| safe to place entire reliance on any one act.
| A regard to the manner in which the con-
t-sct or obligation is executed as whole is
| certainly safer and more satisfactory. Shep-
pard's Touchstone; P. 8; Smith on Con
This rule has repeatedly received the
| sanction Of the Supreme Court. Among
| Others are the cases Of Milliken vs. Minis.
| l2 l.. 546; Wells ct ais. vs.. John Compton. J
| r. III: Narcotic vs.. L. ID. Coco. II K. lb7;
| Wilcoxen rs. BOwles, ! An. l3O; Farrar VS..
Rowley, , An. a75; DAquin ct ais. VS.. Bar.
bour, An AL. and 8 An. .!6. 10 An. COL
| and 69l. and IL An. lib.
| '.It will not be presumed that either party
| intended to impose an absurd or Impossible
condition. The contract will be construed
as the parties must be supposed to have un
derstood it at the time of Its execution
| CLAY VS.. Ballard, 3 3. 3OS
| Another difficulty presents itself III the
| alleged want OF notice. which II was stlpu
| lated should have been given by either
party of his intention to discontinue the
lease at the expiration of the year, ''at least
one month previous to the first of October
1872 The following notice was given:
SEPTEMBER ,, 1872.