The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1875-06-18

| For some time the rumor has been cur
rcnt that tho United States Supreme Court
had materially modified the opinion rem
dercd by that tribunal in the Railroad suit
which opinion we published at tho time
and with which our readers are familiar.
We learn that tho modification made, after
the submission of briefs on u rehearing,
consists i'll tho change embraced in the fol-
lowing amendment, the only alteration in
the original decree being shown in italics:
The motion for re-arguncnt i'll this ease
Il, Vs. nen,ed: 1t Is ordered, however. that tho
min pharagrapi of the decree he amended
$" as to read rs follows:
and il is further ordered and decreed
that the defendants do account for all
money and property received by them out
OF tho property so sold by them or any of
them, rcccirtag IN their account s,tch CREDITS
as ",s'e,. the circumstances OF he ct,sc bv ne
ts'o Of Louisiana, they are entitled to, and
that they pay and dcliver to tho receiver
whatever on such accounting may DO found
There will DO, doubtless, some difference
ofopinion between tho parties litigant as to
tho amount allowed by this supplemental
decree, to the detendants, Labelling and
Associates, for improvements on the road.
Tho dotondants claim very large sum,
about $500, 900, on this score. Tho question
arises, Can II possessor claim reimburse
mont for money expended in improvements
after institution of suit questioning his
by tho law of this State, we shall not haz-
ard much in saying that tho dofenGiants arc
likely to toso tho cost Of tho bottermcnts
mnde since tho bonuholdors first brought
their suit, which was prior to tho making
| any improvements of much magnitude
| on tho road. Wo bcfoive it il pretty we'll
settled that possossors in either goou OF
| bad faith, whom ovicted, arc not entitlod to
endorsement for improvements made
question. If this DO settled, then L,ldoling
and Company will receive but II compnra-
! lively small amount for improvements.
| We submit, ns part of tho railroad suit,
The following interesting extract from the
! brief OF LudoiinG and Associates asking for
| II r"hcaring, with tho simple comment, that
tho Lotrndants, by their own plendings, arc
in a worse condition, 10y making personal
appeal To the Court, than ever:
"A deep and deliberate conviction that,
IN the "piuton pronounced in this cause,
the court has erred in regard to tho princi
in it.indurcs the undersigned most earnest
ly, bu, respectfully, To urge the court to
reconsider Us conclusions. If the opinion
pronounced ia to stand. ii will entail upon
these defendants tho most moncntous con-
sequences. Tho decree not merely strips
| ,h,'m OF fortune, it brands their conduct ,.s
grossly fraudulent and nngitious. In the
instance of tho defendant Labelling, it
| status his nam" and impnirs If II does not
utterly destroy, his usefulness III the high
Office which ho now fills of Chief Justice of
! L"nisinnn. H. breaks mp forever tho hnppi-
| ness OF himself and household If results
| so disastrous arc to TO achieved through IT
| misrepresentation of the principles OF law
| peculiar :" tho Jurisprudence of Louisiana
! ii Labelling is charged with the violation
OF duties not imposed upon him by and
unkh"wh I" that SYSTEM; il his conduct
and that OF his CO. dcicndnnts have becn
injected To the test OF other and foreign
%Ns'"ms Of law il the facts in the 'n'so
| have hrCn Judged from u false and unfair
SiaHIt point, and ifiA version of tlicHc tnrta,
| ",inrcd by "on'piainnnt's counsel, hns. been
too readily adopted 10y tho court, in pitssinG
] upon record so Noluinin"uS; il, through
any all of those means, injustice has
been done, tho court il implorcd to pnllsn
before it, is too late, and rc-rN:LminC tho
| ..!'|o aud reverse it's decree. Tho manner
! in which tho opinion of the court states tho
| rlsc, dS'ioScS tho fact that tho law which
governs i-thc law OF Lou snun has boon
misapproh"ndcd and misnpplied."