New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-09
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1874.
United states Circuit Court.

United States Circuit Court.
United States Vs. William j. Cruikshank
ct tal.-Conspiracy and murder. Submitted.
Supreme Court.
State of Louisiana ex rel. city of New
Orleans and L. Schneider, etc. vs.. the
Judge of the Superior District Court and
w. E. Murphy.-Writ of prohibition issued
prohibiting the judge of the Superior Dis
trict Court from taking further cognizance
for any purpose or purposes whatever of
the cause known on the docket of the Su-
perior District Court as w. E. Murphy vs.
city of New Orleans, and from enforcing
the writ Of injunction issued in the said
cause, and requiring them to show cause
before the Supreme Court on Wednesday,
the fourth of November, 1874, why this
alternative writ of prohibition should not be
made absolute and perpetual, and why q
perempt0ry writ of prohibition should not
sued by Judge James G. Taliaferro.
Superior District Court.
Citizens Bank Vs. Jean Marie Abadie.-
prevent sale of hypothecated property un-
der act of Legislature authorizing the bank
to sell property of stockholders having re-
fused to pay the assessment of 81 per
share" Sale to take place on Friday next.
Superior Criminal Court.
State vs.. Edward Coleman, murder, and
Patrick Bowling, accessory to murder b g.
fore the fact.-On trial. This is the murder
of Charles Berndt on Peters, nearl Hospital
street, on Sunday, April l2.
CONTINUED INDEFINITELY.
State vs. Richard Bell and John Jones
Murder.
William Dennison-Manslaught
Thomas Brady-Grand larceny.
Thomas Brady and Charles Stafford
Robbery.
Juste Rooney-Burglary, etc.
Edward MeCormack-Breaking. etc.
ARRAIGNED.
State vs.. William McCann, Jacob Gray
ct al.-False imprisonment and assault and
battery. Pleaded not guilty.
BOND FORFEITED.
State vs. Etienne Prujean-Assault with
dangerous weapon. Capias issued.
This court will adjourn tomorrow until
the twenty-secOnd instant.
Fifth District Court.
Charles Gallagher vs.. Hugh Cassidy
Rule of exception. Judge Cullom rend-
cred the following decision:
Defendant on the fourteenth April, 1874,
applied to the Fourth District Court for
respite. The order was granted on the
same day, requiring the creditors to hold q
meeting before the notary May l, 1874.
to the respite. On the fourteenth May
Gallagher, who had consented to the re-
spite. brought this suit. After the expira-
ton Of time, as fixed by the order of the
court for the meeting Of the creditors, de-
fendant, Cassidy, applied to the Fourth
District Court for an extension of time, as
the creditors had not yet consented to the
proposed respite May ii. Counsel say it
was granted, although there is no order in
the papers to that effect. the court fixing
the twentieth May. That time has passed
without the consent of the creditors to the
respite. Cassidy now seeks to dismiss Gal
lagher's suit on the allegation that it was
premature, and in disregard of the order Of
the Fourth District Court granting further
time for the meeting Of creditors.
This is a proceeding to force respite.
Art. 30S5 C. c. Cassidy filed true and
exact schedule in the Fourth District Court;
the notice was advertised and notices were
given, but it appears the creditors failed
to attend within the time.
This interpret to be refusal to grant
the respite. Gallagher's consent can not be
held to be binding upon him beyond the
first term May l4) allowed for the meeting
of the creditors. The original order Of the
court ceased to have any effect after the
fourteenth of May, and the creditors were
free to sue. Faures VS.. Courcon. Is L. 436.
The right to respite must be strictly in
terpreted, and can not be extended by inn
plication. If Cassidy fixed too early day
for the meeting of his creditors he can not
avail himself of his error. Janin va. his
creditors, 8 L. All; Peyroux vs.. Dubertrand,
IL L. 80. The exception is overruled.
sixth District Court.
Marie Johns vs.. Captain H. J. Brinker.-
Verdict for defendant.