New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-10-28
COURT RECORD.
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER N, 1875.
Superior District Court.


October ID they re ented No. l42 Canal street
to BerthiD, on the representations of Frank,
for 500 per month; that he positively as
sured them it was only to be used as a dry
or fancy goods store; that they would not
have rented it for any price for business
disagreebla to their other tenants, and had
refused 1880 for a saloon; that defendants
have opened a private market, and hang
large quantities Of beef on the sidewalk;
that this prevents the renting of other pOr-
tions of the premises, is a nuise nee to other
tenants and the neghbora, and a great
damage, besides being contrary to the law
Of Louisiana. Injunction issued on bond of
5000. -
In re. Drainage Commissioners, etc.,
el.-InjunctiOn issued against the sale of
thirteen lots of ground in the First District,
October "a, on bond of 5000.
Superior Criminal Court.
NoLLE pRosEoUI.
State vs. Ellen Brooke and Sarah Hen
derson.-Grand larceny; s,saling $ll0, on
the twenty OF July from T. w.
Pryzware, who never has appeared when
the case was fixed.
ACQUITTED.
State vs. Edward Lewis -Willfully and
malieious,y setting fire, on the twenty
hlktu VI udy. " b uOub6 dJ Iut COTubr OI
Delta and Lafayette streets. True bill
found October 8. There being NO evidence,
the court instructed the jury to render a
verdict OF not guilty.
BAIL REDUCED.
State We, James Fordyce.-Murder; bail
reduced to $500.
CONVICTED.
Stabbing with a dangerous weapon with
infant IN commit runrdpr---Stat Va Mary
Fuller, Albert Poree, Pauline Washington
and Sylvia Reed, charged with at tlbbing
Kate Miller on the twenty.second of June;
Mary Fuller, guilty of assault and battery
with dangerous weapon; Albert Poree,
Pauline Washington and Sylvana Reed,
guilty as accessories Motion filed by de-
Tense 20 discharge accused as the court has
no jurisdiction to pass sentence on the
above verdict.
INFoRMATIoNs.
Stabbing with dangerous weapon, ETC.
John Kline Sam Mitchell.
First District Court.
INFoRMArIoNs.
Catherine Moranty, petty larceny; James
Casey, assault and battery.
vERDIoIs.
Assault and battery-Richard Wick, no,
guilty; John Smith, guilty.
Receiving stolen goods-Philip Raquette
The property found was topaz bracelet, in
rich setting, of Ehglish and Scotch work.
manship, and stolen with other valuables
from the residence of Mrs. Stevenson, De.
cember |, 1874, the night of the procession
of knights Templar 1t was found at ka
quette's place ou Toulouse street, between
Dauphine aud Bourbon streets. Guilty.
SENTENCED.
Suzanna Louis, assault and battery, two
months; Bill Haywood, petty larceny, six
months.
second District Court.
Succession OF Mary Z. Brylan, wife OF
John T. Pettigrew, opened.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Clllom rendered the following de
cision:
Ygnaja Del Valle VS.. w. |. Hodgson.-
May l5 plaintiff deposited q check for $2500
with defendant to bind q sale, to which he
could not give a good title, and return of
the money was demanded. Sequestration
issued September l6, the sheriff making
return that defendant failed to deliver the
money. To rule for contempt defendant
answered the money was paid ol account
of o sale; that the check was deposited and
he does not know where it is unless the
drawer has il; that it is i'm possible to com.
ply with the writ, and disclaims any con.
tempt.
The argument that sequestration does not
lie iu this case is no defense; that is to be
determined after the money is brought into
court, and not by q litigant out of court.
first to obey it's order, and then seek Judi
cial correction of its errors. A party can
not be his own judge. Memo delict esse jnder
IN prOpriG Sud canSd. Tue objection that
he can not surrender the identical money is
too technical. The cases of Emnierson Vs.
Lee, lS An, 1874, and Emeredn'v 'vs. Gernon,
ib., 1856, where the pay was forced to re-
must prove he offered to return the identi-
any other would recognize in them the
quality of currency, does not apply. If it
has become impossible to identify the
money, it is because of defendants improper
use of it. The check was only to be used
on the giving Of valid title, and he had no
right to it. Such an argument would render
it impossible to sequester the proceeds of q
sheritf's sale on his hands on those of cotton
in factors. 1t is impossible for the
plaintiff to identity the bills received for it;
he never consented to make defendant his
debtor, nor he to become q borrower. He
was simply to require an earnest of $2500
for valid title. Every presumption of law
is that he has the money, and he substan-
TALLY admits it. If not, there is malver-
sation which is no defense. Bouv. Die.
Earnest. That defendant acted on the ad-
vice of counsel mitigates. but does not do
away with the otfense. Every one is pre-
sumed to know the law, aud remember at
all times and under all circumstances the
inherent powers and attributes of courts.
Fine of $25 and costs or twenty four hours
in Parish Prison.