New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-13

District Court.
First District Court.
PLRADKp GgILrY.
Petty arceny-Joseph Hall.
isroRMAnoss FIIED.
Petty larceny-Fred. Kit1er. Mrs. Aired May
field, Moses Gustave.
Assault and battery-Mary JONES'
NoLLE pRosEouI ENTERED
Assault and battery-Mrs. (usick
ACQUITTED.
knowingly receiving stolen soode-George K.
johnson.
Woundng less than mayhem-Lavinia Wilson,
Felix Green.
Charles Williams John Harper and John Hurley,
two years in Boys House of Refuge.
Peter Williams, larceny-Six months in the
Penitentiary.
Second District Court.
SUGGESTIONS of John G. Cocks and Robert o. But
jer opened.
Fourth District Court.
JF Clermout VS.. J. ONeal.-Acton under the
civil rights bill The following is the Jury:
Morris Gutman. Isaac Bloom, Albert G. Phelps,
C. B. Augustus, Jesse s. Flower, Leon Queyrouze,
H. shepard, Louis Cavelier, Edwin Belknap, Au-
gustus Doaao n.y. Nike LaGdner
selves unable to agree and were discharged.
John Lewis vs. Hugh McClosky.-Civil rights
and new venue ordered
Fifth District Court.
Judge QulIom rendered the following decision:
Robert johnson vs. Thomas Lee.-November 25,
1872 these parties hiade wager on horse race,
ON a written agreement, of $3.50 side. On the
| same day they made verbal one of $3.50, and the
stakes were put up. third bet of $500 was made,
the plaintiff putting up his grey horse as security
The race was to occur November a. but not wait
ing for that they run their horses November Is.
The Judge decided the $500 stake in favor of John
SON On the johnson johnson went to the
| horse around the track, and Lee not appearing,
half the wager, SIPS, was declared forfeited to
Johnson WHO sues for these sums and expenses
| Sl4 amounting to S439. Lee alleges unfarness in
| the conduct of tile races incapaclty on that day
To make the contract aud that his horse on that
day was epizOotc. He asks for return of the
| $3.50 staked and $l00 attorney fee.
| The case involved with other matters, was do
cided by the Sixth District Court against the plain
tiff, April l. 1874. With few exceptions there is
| no action to recover money won at gaming e. c.
zsaa-a4 Courts generally 1T treat VS. such con on;
| sec. 10; Perkins VS.. Eaton. n H.. l5l Burns VS.
| Kicker John 426: Wheeler VS.. Spencer, Is Conn
28; McAllister vs.. Gallaher. Penn 468; McAllsteI
vs.. Hoffman, IL s. and R. 147. As to what is exces
| sive under the code. ST. Ceran VS. Sherman, Is
| A. 1872; GraysOn vs. Whatley Is A. 525 the Sixth
| think the power to reject the claim such does
| not include the power to reduce the amount. The
| law permits such contracts by not prohibiting
| them.
| The court will enforce them so far as it is not
| abusive of public policy Counsel argued that the
| statute referred to the improvement of the horse
1t does not seem to be legitimate inference. The
| horse has been improved py pains and training
YoHatt on the Horse Is, 40; but the object OF the
| law is not met by the enforcement of such con
| tracts The race appears to have been conducted
| according to rule Hoyle on U lines, 244. The evi
dence shows Lee was under the influence ofliquor
and did not exercise the prudence the courts viii
| REQUIRE in such case. He was not under such self
! control as to care fer consequences johnson
should not have accepted the bets. They were
1Ipinr h.
for a man Of Lees pecuniary abilities. They
amount to one-third of what he was worth. Juds
ment for defendant his reconventlOnal demanc
being dismissed, the costs to be divided.
| The following petitions We're filed:
| Charles Clinton, state Auditor, va. D. c. Byerly
Alexander Walker and Page M. Baker.-Pettionel
alleges defendants have malicOusly and falsely
libeled him by publishing, April 29, an article
How Iniunetions Can Be Removed, and on the
also further falsely charged that he had paid lille
gal vouchers and was guilty Of corruption, fol
| which he claims damages OF $l0.C00.
| Charles Clinton VS.. A. P. Field.-Petitioner set
| forth his Office of Auditor, and duties under TIL,
law; that these duties are exclusive; that defend
| ant. as Attorney General knowing that he was ob
structipg the duties of an officer OF coordinate
branch OF the government, did 60 into the Superior
| District Court calling himself the State of Louis
| lana, and obtain an injunction against plaintiff
| and Antoine Dubuclet, preventing Them from ex
ercising their functions in settling claims unde
| the approximation bill; that the Attorney Genera
had right to institute such suit, and thus wres
the Office from plaintiff and constitute himself th
Auditor; that he desired to obey the Wrlt tlll IL
| illegaity was established and obtained the Opin
ions of the Attorney General at several times; tha
the opinions were foolish and contradictory or ma
liciously contrived to misead plaintiff, and he wa
| put in danger of loss of liberty and property
| that defendant prosecuted him for a contempt III
consequence OF accepting the advice glveH by him
| in paying the claim OF Mortimer Smith; that de
fendant advised that the claim be paid; that plain
tiff issued war; ants according to law; that on th
| rule to show cause he was not allowed to prov
| his cause by counsel or witnesses and was dis
| graced by q fine OF $780, that plaintiff was agaiI
| brought before the court, April 22 tor issuing war
| rants to Generes, Mott and others; that by thest
| acts defendant was guilty Of malfeasance in Otic
and caused damage to plaintiff to the amount o
| $4,000.
Alexander Walker vs. Charles Clinton, Isaac
StOutmeyer and Charles ). Rce.-Petitioner al
| leges that he has always been good citizen, ant
| has established a character that is of value 4
| him journalist that defendants, by causin
| publication in the Bulletin of malicious prose
| cuton and writing. filed in this court, have eE
deavored to defame and mali9n him; that he hat
| no knowledge of the article complained of i'll tn
case of Clinton We. By yerly, and claims damages 1
| the sum of $25 900.
Sixth District Court.
| J. Lefevre and Joseph Garcia, petitioners for
| writ of habeas corpus, they having been conine
| for violation of the lottery act DAcision reserved
the prisoners being at liberty in the meantime.