New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-05
COURT RECORD.
THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1874.

which, with three years to run, makes his
interest $500; that the State is interested
in the suit for the protection of its officers; |
that the purpose of the suit is the hindering |
and embarrassing of the said Justice in the |
discharge of his duties; that it the suit is
we'll founded it comes under the exclusive
Jurisdiction of this court, under act No. OF
1872
Rnle nis issued ordering the clerk of the
Sixth District Court to refrain from fur-
Their proceedings, and show cause on Tues
day. the ninth instant, why the case should
not be transferred to this court.
William Weiss vs. city of New Orleans
Action for damages TO plaintiffs gun store
by the mob, May 5, 1873. On trial before
jury.
State vs.. Madison Lewis.-Breaking and
entering a store in the night time, etc.
Verdict, guilty.
State vs. J. Thompkins and E. j. sulli.
van.-False Imprisonment and assault and
battery. A true bill.
State Vs. B. Berry.-Manslaughter. A
true bill.
State VS.. George Grove and Frank Page.
Breaking and entering, etc. On trial.
First District Court.
Among the arraignments were five keep
ers of private markets, who pleaded not
guilty under the act abolishing them.
NoLLE PRosEQUI ENTERED.
Assault and battery-George Laughlin,
J. Gordier, C. Cunningham.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Larceny-Gustave Morel.
Assault and battery-James Foley. Not
guilty.
Larceny-Tena Mccarthy. Guilty.
J. O'Brien-Larceny. Eighteen months
Nathaniel Williams-Assault with intent
to kill. Fifty dollars fine, or two months
in the Parish Prison.
Third District Court.
Succession of Azelie, wife of Francois
Lavigne opened.
Fourth District Court.
St. Louis Hotel Association VS.. C. E.
Girardey and President Mallard.-Judg-
ment for plaintiff, and the rule for new
trial discharged.
Gambrill Sons & Co. vs.. Louis B. Wake
man and John F. Observation-Disclosures for
plaintiff for $7l55 confirmed.
Schmidt & Ziegler vs.. Michael Ferguson.
Judgment for 1928 So for plaintiff:
John Montana VS.. C. Lipinski.-Verdict
for plaintiff for 5000 for false imprisonment.
George Hildebrand vs.. Samuel Gardiner.
Verdict for plaintiff for $496 80.
Pascal Sarthou vs.. j. Statford.-Verdict
for $500 for plaintiff.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de-
cisiOn:
Mira Zerilla Movers VS.. John T. Michel and John
T. Michel vs. mrs Zelilla Meyers.-Mrs. Meyers is
the owner. in her separate right, OF promlssory
note for the sum of $4,000. dated at New Orleans,
MAY g. 1871 and signed by said Michel, and by him
indorsed it being made payable to his own order
ana bearing eight per cent from May q, 1873 The
interest was paid to that time: rms note Is 81, Sc
provements thereon formerly situated in the parish
Of jefferson. Fauoourg West B0uigny, now the
aphed by the notary. and thoroughly identified
with the act of mortgage Of May 6, 1871, which
contained stipulation that the moftSagor snotio
resort to the courts for the collection OF the note
| should become necessary On December 81, 1879
Mrs Meyers sued out an order Of seizure and sale
of the 1aortgaged property. and the sheriff adver
| tised the same for sale on Monday, February 10
i for On ta s alleging he
had made an "amicable' arrangement with
| Mrs. Meyers and her husband for an extension Of
| that in consideration of said extension Michel
agreed to give thsm Mrs. Meyers and husbsnd)
the collection Of the rents or sad properly ted
the said rents for three months. making $50; that
| $55 50 of said amonnt was to have been appro-
priated to the payment of the claim for insurance
| which was never done; and fourth. he AYERS that
the property seized not properly described IN the
it setting forth that there are 2 SSa
feet He alleges that irreparable loss Will fall
upon him if the sale is permitted to take place of
| furnished bond in the sum of $1,000 and the
necessary affidavit having been made, the Wit OF
| injunction issued as prayed for.
| The defendant in this proceeding answers and
! says that the allegations OF the plaintiff are not
true; but says that on or about June l6, 1872,
did to Nav 5ns
1873; that durit that time Michel did allow her to
collect the rents, $5o per month during Isl SIX
| and August of that year, being $50, and that Mi
cfel collected them for the balance of said stipu-
| and that he has collected them ever since;
| that she has entered remittance for sixty DOL
| lars, in suit NJ 5276. entitled Zerilla Meyer vs.
| John T. Michel, and all interest thereon caimes,
and also for all interest claimed prior to May 1873
| She AYERS that her counsel fees in this suit are
worth $500. She prays for dissolution of the in
junction for the maximum of damages for illegally
suing out this injunction, for $780, attorneys fees
| and for costs.
the Injunction has deemed it right to voluntarily
remit sixty dollars, is confession absolute that
| proof that she had demanded more than was due
her. Every payment pre-supposes a debt Y. y
2l33 This could be Iectifed by injunction only
because, to permit the sale to go on would nave
been tacit acknowledgment of the Indebtedness
| as claimed.
plaintiff, Michel. and think he has failed to show
| that the defendant agreed to extend the time %
| March /, 1874. He should have made his proof Ger
tain not merely probable (although can not see
| that it was made legally prObablel. Mummy VS..
Haggerty Is A., 1858; IS A., 20 and ll6 Byrne vs.
Grayson is A., 457; is A., Ill Briggs va. Smonds
II A., 294 The allegation that the property seized
is not properly described is untenable, as the
description CORE spends exactly with the
| act of mortgage. 1t he saw proper tf
| mortgage a fraction only Of his lot, and Mrs
| Never saw proper to accept it, neither party car
recede from it. illegal agreements having tht
| NM the. nQrfieSp thew must be h6lC
bound by them. C. G. l945, 1901. The SECOND
ground set up for the injunction is OF no value
| The most that could be said for it is that the de
fendapt in injunction had been paid 500 %, which
she had not allowed as a credit, and as a remttitu
has been entered for $50 and interest to May 1873
the ends of justice have been reached and TIT
plaintiff can not complain.
1 Under the circumstances Mrs. Meyers is not en-
titled to damages for the suing out of the lDjunc
ton and none will be allowed. The injunction
must be perpetuated for the said sum OF Sou ant
interest to May, 1873. and set aside as to thu
residue of Mrs. Meyers demand; the paylni
costs of Injunction incurred prior 70 entering the
| remittitur and Michel such as have been incurred
since. =.
| II. Loeb & Co. vs. TeutOnia Natlona
Bank.-Verdict for plaintiff of $500, tn
suit being tor $4,000.
sixth District Court.
Mary Johns VS.. Henry j. Brinker.-Sui
for SIC. 230, for abuse and ill treatment Will
plaintiff was chambermaid of the steam
boat Mary Louise, defendant being captain
| of the boat. On trial before jury.
Parton, in his just published 'Life Q