New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-23
COURT RECORD.
FRIDAY, MAY %, 1874.

United States Circuit Court.
United States va. ". J. Crukshank ct als.-Con-
sp1acy and murder. On trial
Supreme Court.
Present-Atl the judges.
The following decisions were rendered
BT CHIKF JUSTICE LuDRLISG.
No. 3427. A. W. Bosworth VS.. citv of New Orleans
appellant.-FrOm Sixth District Court. A. w. Bos-
worth, Gabriel DeFeriet, Eugene Waegaman, Will
liam McCaleb and Others. claim salaries as com.
mlssioners of Waterworks, for adjusting accounts
between the Commercial Bank and the city, the
court below giving in Judgment for $5o,s4a Ordi'
dlnance OF July 81, 1863 authorizing the commits
sion, fixes no salary. There is no implied obliga-
tion on the part Of the municipal corporation which
obhges them TO make compensation unless the
n I; 81 Mo-, 554; Barton vs New Orleans Is A..
2l.. Inc member of the board who offered the
honorary one only. The plaintiffs have no cause
OF action. Judgment reversed
NO 4843. State 4. A. GirOux.-FrOm First
District Court Murder. The objection that there
is no record that tw. I've grand jurors concurred in
the finding is not tenabe. State Kennedy, 8
Rob, 57l II A., 862; State vs. Thomas, rs A.; R.
State. State vs.. Donneily. 2e L., =. The separs.
ton of the witnesses is within the discretion of
the Judge. Green Ev., e79, eec 432. To rule the
Killing to be in self6efense if GrOux had reasOna
bic ground TO fear felony upon his wife would be
to assume the assault upon the wife was without
prGvoration. pro- ora Wharton Grim Law 1920 The Jury
affil mol.
NJ. $685. Mrs Regina Phillips vs.. Louisiana
From seventh District Court. On policy of insur-
ance dated October A. 1863, on H. =. Moore, who
died March IS. 1870; Payment refused alleging
should die by his own hands" These words can
not be taken literally. for accidental discharge
gun in his hands would exempt the company.
There is latent ambiguity, C. C. l945, 1850. The
intent was to exempt voluntary selfdestruc.
ton 1t does not mean exemption if the insured
became insane and killed himself. 1t was to guard
against fraud. The test of the responsibility is
the state OF the actors reason Block 2l 1889; c. c.
1873. 1893. TIE onus of proofs on the defendant.
It is tsp possible he might have shot himself accident
ally. But if proved the plaintiff has shown he was
insane Reynolds on Lille Insurance los; Mutual
s., April, 1878. Judgment affirmed.
No. 4718 Poitevent & Favre vs. B. s. Harrison,
appellant Sixth District Court. On a draft
of defendant. Judgment affirmed, with ten per
No. 5OO6 James NJ. Lewis VS. j. Edwards, appel.
lant.-FrOm Sixth District Court On two prOmis-
Judgment affirmed, " ith ten per cent damages.
No. 1927. John Nilsson VS.. Richard Baxter Jr ap-
pellant.-From Fourth District Court. There is
much conflict in the evidence hut the weight is in
favor OF plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.
No; 228: Leonard Lssssisne vs.. Michael Bur
Teughs Clark Sixth District
signed. Justice Howell recused.
No. 1904 Joseph J0cot vs. Catharine O Brien, ap
pellaDt--FrOln SlXtn DlSlrict Court. Inc order OF
seizure was based sufficient evidence. Judg
ment affirmed, with ten per cent damages.
No. 33O3. Manchester HarriOtt & Co. VS.. Solomon
Silverstein, appellant.-From Seventh Distric,
Court. On the maxim de minimis non curat lex
the Judgment is affirmed.
BV JUSTICE TALIAFRRRo.
No. 3433. J. NJ Cass VS.. New Orleans Times, ap'
pelant.-FrOm Seventh District Court. Action 70
s 10000 for libel IN publishing charge of embez
element. taken from an affidavit IN the Second JUS
tices Court. An explanatory card and article was
published the ne xt day. No agreement was made
that this was sufficient satisfaction. The charge
against Cass was withdrawn. The third jury gave
$1,000 The style of the article is calculated to
create the impression that the wr er believed the
charges true The manner of mani ipulatiOn OF the
belief calculated to iniure plaintiff. The affi-
davit was false and M 4cl0us. Thousands might
read the charge that would never see the refuta-
tiOn. Proof OF damages is rot necessary. A. SO;
II A. 200; Perrett Us. the Times, rs A. ia. Judg-
justice Morgan Justice wyly with him. dissent
ing says if the affidavit had been printed writ
ten no question could have arisen, and he does
not consider tn. comments NbelOus. He analyses
press. and thinks editors should not be compelled
to write with manacles on their hands.
Nos. 1904 and 3005. J. Q. Packard VS.. Ober, At
water Il Co-From Sixth District Court On re-
hearing, the former decree is amended; Ober At
water Co. allowed a credit OF $33O3 40 on the
Judgment against them; to retain in their hands
$500 for ninety days. if not paid in that time the
amended Judgment is affirmed.
Justice Wyly adheres to his former opinion and
Chief Justice LUdeng dssents.
No 43i4 State vs. Mr. and Mrs. !acsbs.-From
Sec ond Judicial District Arson. On rehearing For
mer decree reversed and Judgment affirmed. II A.
758; s. and Marshall, 29G; Kelly, 574; Zabriski
3l7; o., l0' l. A, 2e u A. SOL 10 A, 65' ii A,
No 1865. Philip Brown VS.. Theophilus W. Kendall
appellant.-From Fifth District Count. The order
of seizure on mortgage was regular. Judgment
atfi rmed with ten per cent damages
No. 3458. A. L. Bader et ais, appellants VS.. Mar
celIne Pouplin ct al.-From Second District Court.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 1857 Samuel Lee vs. Theophilus ". Kendall.
appeliant.-From Fifth District Court On Dr0mis
sorry note. Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent
damages.
No. $3.50. Emily J. Green Mrs. John Rhodes
W. H. Beggs appellant.-From Fifth District
Court. On promissory note: Defense, that Elk
phed by William McC Jones, notary. and that they
are forseries The question is merely, which holds
the genuine note; The judge below was correct
Judgment affirmed.
No. 4724. Ball Lyons rs, F. Schumacher, appel
lant.-From Fifth District Court. Judgment fol
+ 1917 affirmed.
No. 1928. Widow Anatole Where, appellent, VS.
succession of Hugues Viere-FrOm Second Judi
cial District On promissory note of 3 1866 b6
the court below sustaining the plea of prescrip
ton. The administrator can not waive or renOunce
it. 81 A., 373, 7t9; % A., 1873; "a A. 83. Jndsnea
affirmed.
No. 52O6. G. Trisconi vs. A. p Dumas, appellant
From Fifth District Court On ten prOmissory
notes of Ss3 SO each Judgment affirmed.
No. 4799. Union Insurance Company vs.; Miss
A
Court. Judgment OF s 1898 affirmed, with ten pc
cent damages
No. 4868. Amelie Cinmack VS.. Mrs. Catharint
Roberts Observation-Disclosures affirmed, with tel
No. 1866. Leopold Boinard VS.. Catharine Roberts
appellant Prom Fifth District Court. Delay ap
pearing the only object or this appeal. ten De
cent dana ges are allowed. Judgment affirmed
70. 1864. Feloise Gosselin Mrs. Catherine Rob
erts aprellaDt.-From Fifth District Court. Judg
ment affirmed, with ten per cent damages.
No 1859 Catherine SagoogA vs.. Mrs. CATHERINE
Roberts appellant. From Fifth District Court
Judgment affirmed with ten per cent damages
BY yrsTIcE HOWELL.
No. 1878. Charles Weishaar VS.. Mrs. Anais Ber
nous appellant.-Fram Sixth District COnrt. &c
ton on q lost promissory note secured by mort
gage Judgment affirmed.
No. 34s3. j. R..Wolf VS.. Thomas s. Duggan. appe
lant-From sixth District Court. The wall be
tween the parties as demolished and rebuilt b,
plaintiff. half the wall being on defendants sol
He can not claim M half the expense Of defendant
No. 5Ol3. George A. Fosdck vs. George Craman
appellant-From Fifth District Court. PrOmissor.
note. Judgment affirmed. with ten per cent dam
No 1929 Page L Moran rs. D, L. J. Garrett ap
pellants From Sixth District Court. PrOmissor
note. Judgment affirmed with ten per cent dam
No 4S93 August Obse George Uhmaher, ap
pellant. From Sixth District Court. Judgment OF
seizure and sale affimed, with ten per cent dam
No. 467S. CarrOllton Insurance Company VS. +. c
Hester, appellant-FrOm Second Dlstr1ct court
Judgment affirmed. No claim for damages
No. 52l2. Succession of Z. COrdevile ct Ais vs.
John Dawson, appellant-From Skin DlstIlc
Court registration is necessary to give effect t
a donation. Code Of 1925 I54l; 20 A., o7lL Judg
ment affirmed.
No 5l65 Thomas Nils vs.. L A. Burthe, appellant
From Sixth district Court. Judgment gf sezur
and sale affirmed with rem per cent damages
No 5289. James J. Irby VS.. Her Co., appellants
From Fifth District Court. Promissory note
Judgment affirmed with ten PEI cent damages
No. 4638. George Cronan VS.. J. O. Belknap Co
anpellants-From Fifth District Court. On promis
sory note. Judgment affirmed with ten per cen
No. 4slS. Succession Of Tobias Drum..From Sec
ond District Court. Judgment amended by deducl
ceived bv the widow.
No. 4897. Mrs 4 Z. DeBlanc VS.. Firnin Levas
seur appellant. From Second District Cour'
Judgment amended by increasing II 10 1858 W.
By JUSTICE WHY.