New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-30
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, JUNE %, 1874.
Superior District Court.

Superior District Court.
State of Louisiana va. New Orleans, Mo-
bile and Chattanooga Railroad Company
Judgment according to petition, that the
defendant company having failed to COM
ply with the provisions of the law creating
it and granting the franchise. and having
failed to complete the road. be condemned
to return to the State the $50 bonds Of $1,000
each issued tor its benefit.
Superior Criminal Court.
SENTENCED.
State vs.. Edward Coleman.-Murder.
Verdict of guilty. The court addressed the
convict in substance as follows:
Edward Colemau-You have been tried
by Jury of your peers under an indict-
ment of the grand jury Of this parish for
the crime of murder and have been found
guilty Have you anything to cay why
sentence should not be pronounced upon
you'
And the prisoner answered: No.
And the court then said:
It becomes nv painful duty to declare to
you the sentence of the law. 1t is duty
which can not avoid. but 1t Is one that
gives me more pain to declare to you than
YOU, in tho present attitude you hold to-
ward this court, are giving ne credit for.
1t is duty the court must perform: The
trial that you had brought forth evidence
80 conclusive in its character that it
showed, in the commission of the murder OF
which you have been convicted, you were
entirely devoid of all the feelings that usu-
ally actuate human beings. 1t is useless
for me to lecture you, for l am satisfied |
could have no influence on the depravity of
your mind.
You have had an impartial trial, and l
will say that it has been 80 tair to you that
there have been many instances where the
rulings of the court would have been
strictly in accordance with the law had
they been more against you, but l have
allowed the reasonable doubt to which you
are entitled in the verdict of the jury to in
huence me, and have ruled mercitully in
your case l have given you every hope of
life within the law. The jury have found
you guilty. consider it my duty to fur
ther warn you that it is my firm belief you
have nothing to hope from an appeal to the
Supreme Court of the State. feel sure,
and wish to earnestly impress upon you,
the certainty OF this: That there is no point
in the trial Of your case which the Supreme
Court is liable to reverse.
Let me advise you to prepare to meet the
Supreme Judge before whom you mus1
shortly appear
1t only remains for me to declare the SEN
tence Of the law 1t is this: That you be
taken from this court to the Parish Prison,
and from thence be taken to suffer the pen
alty of death at such time and place and
manner as the Governor shall designate
State vs.. Robert Butlsr.-Carrying con
cealed weapon; plea Of guilty; fine OF $25
or twenty days in Parish Prison.
State vs.. William Jones Burglary; ten
years in Penitentiary.
ON TRIAL.
State Vs. Joseph Hugel-Murder. The
accused in October last killed his daughter
Catherine as she left the ship she arrived
in this country on Various causes were as
signed at the time for the homicide, such as
disobedience, want of chastity. intention OF
departure, with a young man, from the
parent. and other reasons, but none have
appeared satisfactory. The defense has not
vet disclosed itself.
First District Court.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Assault-Wiliiam Moran, Ellen Moran,
J. w. Hartnett.
NOLLE PROSEQUI ENTERED.
Petty larceny-Mary Armstrong.
Assault and battery-Eugene Drager.
CONVICTED.
Assault-Mary Malone.
Keeping disorderly house-Richard and
Fanny Camp.
Th;rty-six Jurors were ordered for the
next term of the court.
INFORMATIoNs FILED.
Petty larceny-W. Finlay. J. Hubbard,
Charles Palfrey, Jean BenOit Barrett. alias
Souleyes. John Eppes, Henry Woods,
Michael Flaherty.
Obtaining money, etc.-Marv Phillips.
Breaking, etc.-Charles Wood, John
Fields, Richard Moran.
Assault, etc.-Louis Shedrick, Manuel
Leroni, Alexander Monet, Maria Raider,
Lizzie Wilson, Emma Dunno, John Mullan.
Fourth District Court.
The promissory note, jury and unappeal-
able case dockets Of this court are now en-
tirely cleared.
OF appealable cases there are only about
sixty left for next term.
Judge Lynch rendered the following de-
Heirs of John Slidell vs.. Jane M. Bur-
chardt.-Rule to dismiss Appeal discharged.
Peter Metz vs. Rudolph Hetch.-New trial
refused.
David S. Randlury vs. Collier, Whiteleaf
g. Co.-Pettion dismissed.
Mutual Savings Bank VS.. keifer Broth
ers-Judgment for plaintiff
Jean MOntane VS.. Bernard Noener.-Pe'
titOn dismissed.
Joseph Rrugere Vs. heirs of John Slidell.-
Judgment for $449O.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de-
cision:
Everett Lane & Co. vs. E. II. McDan.
iels.-Plaintiff alleges that the defendant
owes him balance of $453 30, with eight
per cent interest thereon from February Is,
iS74, on certain promissory note given by
the firm of D. j. Mcdonald q Co, of Ark
adelphia. Arkansas, for $735 32, $500 of
which has been paid. That defendant was
and is member OF the commercial firm of
f. II, McDaniels g. Co, dOmiciliated in
Arkadelphia, State of Arkansas. That said
firm has property within the jurisdiction OF
this court, and in the possession OF John
Chaffe, Brother g. Son, OF this city. They
pray for Judgment for said balance, and TOR
writ of attachment whereby the firm of
Chaffe, Brother & Son were made garnishees.
The interrogatories propounded we're an
swered, disclosing the fact that L. II. Nc
Daniels & Co. had shipped lot of cotton
to the garnishees, and that they were In
debted to the latter for advances made on
consignments of cotton in an amount
largely in excess Of the proceeds of the lot
| attached. The garnishees now intervene
and aver that the cotton in question was re-
ceved by them before the plaintiffs had ac'
ouired any rights thereto. That according to
their we'll understood agreement, they were
in full possession of the cotton, the pro-
ceeds of which were to be applied accord
ing to the instructions of E. II. DcDaniels
& Co.; that it had been sold and the pro-
ceeds applied to the payment of the indebt-
edness Of said firm to garnishee. leaving an
unpaid balance still due Of over $802l. They
| aver that they are and were creditors OF
| the firm of Z. Ii. WcDaniels g. Co., and
| that they have preference on assets of the
same over the creditors of the individual
| members of the firm of E. H. McDaniels d
| Co.; that the property garnisheed belonged
to the partnership of E. H. Nc Daniels 4
Co., and was insufficient to pay them for ad-