New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-01-18
First District COur1s
SENTENCED,

SENTENCED.
State IS. Louis Casseiar.--Assauis and
battery. One hour imprisonment in the
Parish Prison.
State VS.. Henry Clay-Iarcsny. Two
and half years Imprisonment at hard
la boz in the Penitentiary.
state W. Sam Robinson. -Asssuls and
battery. One hour in the Parish Prison.
Second District Court.
xUCCEssIoNs OPENED.
Estate of DR.. j. s Lewis, PATRICK Bannoil,
Marie Rose Salvador, Joseph Hichard.
C!ague and Manuel Castro.
fifth district Cour&.
Samuel Fasnacht VS.. Michae, Frank
The plaintiff herein took cut q writ of in
junction to prohibit the sheriff from making
a sale OF certain mortgaged property. He
had seized, and was proceeding 70 sell the
property described in the act of mortgage,
by virture OF an order Of seizure and sale
issued i'll the matter of Frank VS.. Fasnacht,
No. 1863 Of the docket of this court. The
injunction herein was taken out on the
alleged ground that. at Che time the act Of
mortgage was signed, as an inducemsnt 10
his signing, Frank, the mortgage, granted
him. tasnacht, time tor paying the debt 20
secure which the notes and mortgage were
given, although the fact did not appear as d
matter OF mention in the contract. CT,
.39, sec. 4. That at the time of the execution
OF the act OF mortgage, Frank agreed that,
SO long as FasnachJ should pay the interest
on the debt then contracted he would not
exacted the payment Of the principal. In
the answer to this suit Frank fatty denies
that any such understanding ever existed.
lie further answering says that there was
an agreement at the time, made at the re.
quest and persistent solicitation of Fasnacht,
to the effect that he, Fasnacht, should be
allowed to pay SIC, 900 in about six months,
for which Frank was to allow him the rate
of discount which he contracted to paw as
interest Oh the debt. Fasnacht swears posi-.
lively to the truth of his version Of the I'M
derstandlng, and Frank swears equally
positively that no such agreement was ever,
at any time, entered into. They contradict
each other IN regard to both versions. At
the time the act was drawn up, Mr.. Fas-
nacht had 1t read to him, read it himself,
then took possession of it, showed it To Mr.
Cuviier, formerly, it not then, notaLy
pubic. He then returned it to the notary
by whom it had been drawn up, Directing
to nothing IN 1t except the mention of
Frank as the holder of another note. The
act stipulated that he, Frank, should cancel
the mortgage given to secure that outstsnd-
ing note. 1t was objected to- because Fas-
nacht wanted the real holder to cancel the
n
from the original draft, it was signed. Mr..
Wild. the former owner of the mortgaged
property, was sworn On behalf of Fas-
nacht, whose tenant he is. He knew
nothing of the alleged consent to
grant time for payment of the debt:
knew nothing whatever Of the agreement
set up by Fasnacht as the reason for suing
out the injunction. He was Intercepted
touching the damages alleged by Fasnacht.
HAVING happ l.x,t tn T.
mortgaged property; made some statements
as to the effect which the seizure had pro
duced on Fasnachts credit here and in Gin
clnnatl, but they were vague, and laid no
foundation upon which the court could have
based judgment for damages In fact.
upon the cross -examination, IL TRANSFERRED
that he knew of no real dana es sustained.
spoke OF fasnacht's inability 70 sell the
in consequence of the seizure hnt
tailed to show that any damages resulted
from the seizure. His testimony throuph.
out as vague, and signally fails to corrobo.
rate the statement OF Fasnach. az to the
Time alleged to have been granted for tha
payment OF the debt. 4 letter and a draft
were produced, but there is nothing in
them going to show the alleged agreement.
independently OF the statements of Has
nacnt, ana as all these were positively con.
tradlcted, and the draft and the LETTER dif
feIently explained by Frank, am comnelIea
to take them for what they appear on their
lace and In their tenor to be worth. Con.
fldered IN and of themselves. they prove
nothing beyond Fasnacht's Willingness to
pay Frank $1,000 at that time. Thus far
they rather strengthen the answer of tha
latter TO the prayer tor injunction. and 90
II some measure to show the correctness Of
his version OF the understanding. Az than
ne appears to have owed the debt, which
rank subsequently endeavored to collect
by an order of seizure and sale the Iat.o
was under no obligation to refund The
amount then paid, and can not be held
,laoie for any of the consequences to
fasnacht's credit here or elsewhere
k kroiS directly or otherwise out of
z rank recourse to law for the col.
ecton OF the balance of the debt. Edward
Il; hogan, the notary public before and nv
wnom the act of mortgage was passed.
oei1g put on the witnesses stand by the de,
~ FRANK, states that some converse
.lOu between the confroot;nu