New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-03-13

| at Manchester quiet and frm Lard 6ls Sd.
H.v1ss asso5 is-spsni.n sod sssoss7 rs "a ameri.
can 23902AO. Exchange 6rmeF; on Uuited States,
DO ieoSSs premium; sisty dsSs sold EASES @ p4e.
mium; abort sight do las0i3O premium; on London
i480lso premium: on Paris ls0l3o premium
COURT. RECORD.
FRIDAY, MARCH l2. 1875.
| Supreme Court.
REfIEARING GRANTED.
No. 1899. Canal and Claiborne Street
Railroad Company vs.. succession of Arm
strong.
| REHEARINGs REFUSED.
No: 55l4. w. G. Wilmot vs. city of New
No. 1882 E. Lefranc ct ux Va. same.
1 No. 1926. Samuel Smith va. same.
No. 1892. Pontchartrain. Railroad vs..
Same.
No. 1909. Spaulding vs. same.
No. 1888. John TObin Va. Canal and Clai-
borne Street Railroad Company.
No. 1928. B. T. Walshe vs. same.
No. $3.50. M. Kenoski vs. NJ. Davis Bar
nett ct sl.
No. 1926. Owen N. T. Flaoker Va. Amos
Kent.
| Superior District Ceurt.
Louisiana Savings Bank and Safe Deposit
Company va. James w. Pearca.-Prsyer for
$3.50.
Edward w. Huntington vs. city of New
| Orleans.-Petitioner sets forth Judgment
| against the city of $500; that copies were
served on the Administrator of Accounts
as provided for by act No. 5 of 1870, extra
session; that by section three of that act,
when the appropriation set apart for pay
HnvNt svpA< ,tos A~1c I'll
Tor contingent expenses is to supply the
deficiency; that the sum for judgments is
exhausted, but the treasury has q surplus
on the contingent fund; that the Admins
traitor of Accounts refuses to warrant on
this fund, and prays that he may be ordered
to do 80 or show cause to the contrary. Ser
vice accepted.
Superior Criminal Court.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Carrying concealed weapons-Joseph
Jones.
Breaking and entering, etc.-Lucien Yer
trand and Paul Victor. i've years each.
State vs.. RanAp Observation-Disclosures
George II. Brsughn, Esq, presiding in the
absence of Judge Atocha, charged the Jury
substantially as follows:
/ The jury are the judges of the law and
the facts, and if they see fit, may disregard
the statement of the law by the Judge. You
twelve citizens are alone accountable for
the verdict, and can not shift the RESPONSE
bllity upon the court or counsel. BY r. S.,
7S4, the punishment for murder is death.
The common law prevailing, murder may
be said to exist "Where q person of sound
memory and discretion uplawfully kills any
reasonable creature, being in the peace OF
the State. with malice afOrethought, either
express or implied" Express malice is
Vryho 1rS1 nk,n
crate mind and formed design. Malice is
implied from o deliberate and cruel act.
however sudden. Malice once ascartained
is supposed to continue down to the fatal
act. The killing proved the burden of ex-
tenuaticn is on the defendant Manslaugh-
ter is killing without malice. An Unlawful
action, done with deliberation, with inten-
murder. Ii the jury determine tbs was
without original intention, it I. man
slaughter. Excusable homicide J. dom
mitted by misadventure, In the do.sg ot q
lawful act OR in self-defense. The l.. tter ia
not presented in this case. If the shot was
fired without designing to injure or not
pointed particularly at any one, AID fired
the death is excusable homicide. If one
not in the performance of q lawful act
kills another it is murder OF manslaughtAr.
You are to determine from the evidence the
facts and the degree of credibility you will
attach to the statements of the Witnesses
You must be satisfied the crime has been
committed. If there is a reasonable doubt
the accused is en- titled to the benefit of it.
II from the whole evidence you are salts
fed that Marmoget killed the deceased as
charged it will be your duty to return
verdict of guilty. II you are not satisfied
YOU should return . verdict of not guilty.
Drunkenness is no excuse for crime unless
the state Of mind produced is q permanent
and continuous result. Character is only of
value in doubtful cases, and Is left to the
of tho jury. The case is now
with you, gentlemen; you have sworn to do
Fair and impartial justice between the State
and the, prisoner at the bar, and believe
you will do 60 without fear or favor. If
n your judgments you believe the prisoner
.uilty as charged then let not sympathetic
ceilings or consideration of any kind pre-
.uilty. II, upon the other hand. Won be-.
ieve that the State has not made out a
ase OF murder or manslaughter, then it is
our duty to bring in verdict of not guilty.
The jury, at 7:30 p. NJ, returned verdict
4 granddaughter, with q recommendation
First District Cours.
SENTENCED.
Richard Delmore, on plea of guilty of as
soAU, OaSo uoy N Z 8r19Q fElSOU.
Second District Court.
SUGGESTIONS Of Marie Desiree Lafarge.
,ldow Of Clement Lehman, and Gerard
lenry Woesta opened
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de-
lslon On defendants motion for q new
rial:
John ). Walton vs. Southern Express
ground that, the United
tates having been satisfied by plaintiffs
Jerk (Chadwick), who does not pretend
lalntiff is liable to him, the plaintiff has
o interest in the suit, was considered at
ne first trial bat is re-examined. The pay
,ent was made defendant on q forged
raft. Nothing was due defendant or any
ne else: 1t is obliged to restore it. &C.
3O1. What is paid when no debt exists
lay be reclaimed. C. C. 2l33 1t was paid
n the supp0sition of an obligation which
id not exist. C. G. 1904. The limited
tates was not estopped from setting mn its
lain and looking to Walton if the payment
'as made on forgery. Walton has the
ght to prosecute, because Chad vick's tea.
mony precludes him from setting up the
sme claim and because it is prosecuted for
lm' which Walton may do on agreement.
owne vs.. Couch, A. "a. New trial re-
lsed.
HOLLAND has about $4,000 windmills in
peration whenever there is breeze.