New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-07

| ne ana his companion were run into by Cal
| No. l, belonging to defendant, at the inter
section of DelOrd street and Tivoli circle
that the car was carelessly driven at grea1
speed: that his buggy was broken, his horse
| wounded, and his companion and himself
| injured, and prays for damages of $780,
First District Court.
NoLLE PROsEQUI ENTERED.
State VS.. Thomas and Mrs. Malloy.-
knowingly receiving stolen goods.
| State vs.. Richard Evans.-Bribery.
SENTENCED.
Carrying concealed weapon-Charles
COughlin; fine of ten cents.
Assault and battery-John GRAY, two
cases; one day and one honr.
Tom Boston; one day.
Joe Planellas, fine of SIS.
second District Court.
SUGGESTIONS of Mrs. Mary Morgan. wife of
Philippe Mailhes; Richard B. Campbell and
Patrick Halpin opened.
John, Joseph and Terrence Francis Ward
pray to be emancipated.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cuilom rendered the following de-
cision:
John T. Moore vs. New Orleans Mutual
Insurance Company; same vs.. same; Emile
Taneret vs. Mutual Insurance Company
John T. Moore & Co. took out a. policy of
insurance, November %, 1872, of $1,000. on
a sugarhOuse and contents in Pointe Cou-
pee, to expire December q. and paid the
premium. The property destroyed was
furnished by them as commission merchants
The second suit is for $4,000 on a policy of
one year, TO commence February IL, 1872
The fire occurred December l, 1872. The
defense claims the loss was caused by an
explosion of boilers
The testimony OF experts shows the loss
by fire to have been certainly $4,000. The
loss by the explosion is estimated at $4,000.
1t occurred on Friday. The fire was dis
covered Sunday morning, forty-eight hours
after. and can hardly have been caused by
it. There was no apprehension on the
part Of those about the sugarhouse, for
they slept within the walls after it occurred.
The theory of the defense must be rejected.
Phillips ms. sec. 1882; Livic vs.. Janson,
~ East, 653; 1onides vs.. Universal Marine
Insurance Company. Ia C. B., N. S. 259;
E. C. L. r. 10S. The fire did not occur
through any negligence on the part of the
plaintiffs and their right to recover must
follow. Philips ms. 70. sec. 1872; Flanders
lns. 5s; Duer l6l, 2ll; 2 Pars. Cont. 446.
As to burden of proof see Flanders, 495;
Phillips 7l2, sec. 'll60; Green; Ev. 395,
40l: Mason AL; ii Ark. 264
1t is claimed that if the insurers are liza
BILE they should be subrogated to the mort
gagee's rights. Cushing vs.. Thompson, 81
Me, 496; King vs.. State Insurance Com
pany, Cush., l; Smith vs.. Columbia Insur-
ance Company, II Penn. State. 253; In
surance Company vs. Updegraff q ib., 5l3;
Etna Insurance Company vs. Tyler, l6
Wend., 5S5, 397; Carpenter vs.. Providence
Washington Insurance Company, l6 Peters.
495. sol. Our Supreme Court has not
passed on the question. Insurance contem-
plates simple inden nifty, and the premium
is all the company contracts for. The doc
trine of subrogation should be enforced
whenever the loss is caused by the debtor,
but not carried to any greater extent. Ma
son vs. Swinsbury, 3 Doug, 81; Hart VS..
Western Railroad Company, l3 Met. Ga;
White vs. Brown, 2 Cush.. 4l2 Suffolk Fire
Insurance Company VS.. Boyden. 8 Allen.
l23; Civil Code, 2l59 to 2l62. Judgment
tor plaintiff. rejecting defendants alleged
rights of subrogation.