New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-06-22

creating the municipal police courts for the
city of New Orleans, stands as an exception
to the rule laid down in article six of the
constitution. guaranteeing the right of trial
BY jury, and that article has no application
to that class of otfenses which are to be
tried summarily, and without the interven.
ton of an impartial jury from the vicinage
The offence charged to the relator proceeds
from violation of an ordinance of the City
Council; it is d case arising under the police
regulation OF the city of New Orleans,
which falls within the jurisdiction of the
First Municipal Police Court. By taking
cOgDizance of that case and prOnOuncing
judgment on the offender. John Bennett,
the relatOr herein, the judge OF the said
municipal police court has committed no
usurpation Of Jurisdiction, but has merely
exercised the authority conferred upon him
by section ten of the act Of Nav II, 1873,
creating the several municipal police courts
for the city of New Orleans and defining
the jurisdiction thereof,
For these reasons, it is ordered and de.
creed that the rule herein sued out By the
relator be discharged and that he be re-
manded to the custody of the criminal
sheriff for the parish of Orleans: said rela-
tor paying costs of these proceedings.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de-
clslOn:
Peet, Yale s. Bowling vs.. Golsen Brothers.
The plaintiffs ailege that the defendants
are indebted to them in solido as CONNER
cial partners IN the sum OF $500 0S. with
eight per cent interest per aunum from the
fifteenth day of May. A. ID. 1873. They az.
mex two promissorv notes drawn payable to
their order. and signed by Powell g. IIamil-
ton and 4. &. Sl,ith, alleging that at the
TINE of making them the present defend
ants were the commercial partners OF
Powell g. Hamilton. The defendants
pleaded the general denial, and pray to be
hence dismissed with their costs.
The evidence shows that on the twenty
third day Of February, A. D. 1873, the artI-
cles of copartnership between Purcell and
Hamilton and the present defendants were
signed, and that the notes sued on were
executed on the twenty fourth of February.
the following dag. and that K. 3. Smith
was duly authorized TO 81 On the names OF
! the firm which he did in this instance. The
general denial admits the signature to the
notes. Davis, administrator. va. Charles
Davis: A.. 81: Tyler vs. Marcelin. BIZ; see
also !. =! and - \.
The acknowi.as men. OF the genuineness
OF the signature is an admission that 1t Is
genuine. as alleged and plaintiff need not
prove what is not denied. Akin vs.. Bed
| ford. n. s., 6i5; High and VS.. city o!
New Orleans. II A. l37; but IL this case
plaintiff did prove the genuineness OF the
| signature The defendants counsel con
| tended that the notes sued on were with.
| cut consideration AS to them. This should
have been set up in the pleadings: the OBJ
| jet Of pleading being 10 notify the adverse
| PARTY Of fhe nature of the claim, or of the
defense intended 20 be urged. tina. ne may
| be prepared 10 .!isprove it and also to serve
| as a reward, ey Idence of such matters az
! have been once decided. Where promis
sorry notes are executed consideration il
! always presumed. To destroy that pre-
, sumption the want OF it should be pleaded.
| and tie holder thereby placed on his guard.
court can not he decoyed outside the plead
ings to give force 20 plausible and ingenious
| argument.
The facts in this case show. however,
! that there was consideration for the notes
| sued on. nv which the defendants were
! benefited. The authorities referred to by
! defendants counsel have been examined;
| carefully. 10 wit: COilver Part, sec. AL
| Story Part, secs. lel. l52: Pa7s. Part, p
| 1913: } Rob. 3.S; A. 6i4; 20 A. -; =. A.
! :'S9. Under the established facts OF thi.
| case they are considered inappiicaoie and
| without force in the decision OF IT'S merits.
The plea of general denial of Indebtedness
| arising from an agreement or obligation
| under private signature admits all 'hat is
essential 70 a right to recOver-C. 7. 3!!l
| and the decisions thereon already cited
| and leaves no margin tor any defense what
soever unless specially pleaded As there
is no special plea in this case there mus. be
| Judgment for plaintiffs, as prayed foc.