New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-01-19
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 1875.
Supreme Court.
Y JUSTICE TALIAFERRo.


debtedness to plaintiff. He says the ac-
ceptances were made in error; the drafts
were drawn against shipments of beer
made to defendant, which proved to be stale
and worthless. He alleged losses in cOnse-
quence, and set up in reconventiOn claim
for freights and damages resulting from
loss of custom and patronage arising from
the beer. The plaintiff had judgment for
amount sued for, and defendant appealed.
1t appears that the beer when put on board
of a steamer at st. Louis was of good
quality, and after shipment it was at the
risk of defendant Plaintiff took back and
gave credit to defendant for such portions
of beer as proved worthless. 1t is an article
liable to lose its properties and become unfit
for USE Such beer he did not return, but
endeavOred to dispose of by bottling and
sending to the country for sale. He should
have returned the beer or paid the price.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 39lS Michael Muller VS.. II. L. Stone
and Willoz and Rosland, Mary G. and Viii
liam Muller, INSTRUMENTATION Eighth Dis
trict Court.-Plaintiff alleges that he is
| owner of certain lots of ground and build
ing thereon, situated at the corner of
| Gravier, Front and Fulton streets, New
Orleans; that the house he occupies is used
| for purposes of business and as family
residence, the lower story as a refreshment
| saloon. He complains that the adjoining
building, owned by defendant Stone and
| leased to WillOz 81 ROslaud, ID used for the
purpose of carrying on a sugar refinery, in
operating which powerful steam engine is
used; that the working of the engine night
and day causes himself and family uncOm-
| Portable annoyance. The force of the power
| rocks the foundation of plaintiffs building,
| causing tremOr, and cracking the wall,
| threatening the destruction OF the fabric;
tha6 for safety of his family, relief from
/ noise, agitation and steam vapors from
engine, he has been compelled to remove
| them to another residence. He alleges also
| loss of business in consequence of his
| customers refusing to enter his saloon be-
| cause of its unsafe and uncomfortable con-
ditiOn. He prays for $4,000 damages,
and enjoinining the operation of said
Cteam engine, Catherine and Viii
liam Muller, alleging a half own
ership in the property. occupied by
plaintiff join in adopting the allegation of
his petition. Defendants entered a general
denial; aver they have paid the city of
New Orleans $500 license for sugar refinery
| building by the city surveyor; also, State
license for the same privilege; they pray
for the rejection of plaintiffs demand, and
that the city of New Orleans, as their war
rantOr, be called in to defend them against
action. The city excepted that defendants
have no cause of action; that its permission
| binds it to maintain them in the use of the
plaintiff. Defendant Stone appealed. The
plaintiff has fully made out case which
entities him to relief As to the important
inquiry whether Stone, the proprietor of
the building leased to WillOz & ROsland, is
liable to damages, it ia shown that he
can not be held responsible. Judgment, SC
far as concerning defendant Stone to pay
damages, is annulled and reversed plain
tiff and appellant to pay costs of appeal.
No. 54ll. Succession of Celestine Dorville
in the matter of the executors account
From the Second District Court. Judgment
annulled and set aside, and the case re
manded for further proceedings, costs to be
borne by the succession.
| No. 1868. Ann Ryan and Mary A. Haley
vs.. j. z. Cross, manager of Septoline Oi
Company Sixth District Court
This is an action for damages alleged tt
have arisen from the explosion of lamI
in which plaintiffs were using septoline oil
sold by defendant at his depot, No. Is Dau
phine street, and asserted by him to be non
explosive. On lighting a lamp filed witt
this oil it exploded, and fragments of glass
and burning fluid were projected into the
eyes and face of plaintiff, and of hel
daughter, Mary A. Haley, who nearly los
eyesight, and was otherwise seriously in
jured. The mother claims $1,000 and thu
daughter $4,000 damages. Judgment wal
rendered for plaintiff, Mary Ann Haley, fol
$1,000; for Ann Ryan $3.50. Defendant ap
pealed. Judgment affirmed.
No. 1927. j. d. Weaver Vs. F. NJ. Fisk
The motion to dismiss is Overruled.
No. 1916 Samuel Logan vs.. city of New
Orleans.-FrOm Seventh District Court
The plaintiff, a physician and surgeon
brings suit for services rendered to two
Metropolitan policemen, wounded in the
City of Jefferson in 1863; he alleges his ser
vices were engaged by the Council of tina
city The bill is $500. His services ar,
| - - -. aIs
not worth the amount charged. Detens'
alleged that the City Council of Jefferson
had not the authority to employ plaintiff Il
reuder these services. The first trial re
suited in favor of defendant, the second il
favor of plaintiff, and defendant appealed
Judgment affirmed.
No 45l7. Charles +. Behrens VS.. Samue
D. Dixon, tutor.-The appeal is dismissed
No. 545i. Succession of Arthur Nc
Arthur.-MotiOn to dismiss Overruled.
No. $685.. Celestin LHote VS.. Widow Viii
liam Eagan-FrOm Fifth District Court
Plaintiff sues for 1892 l6, the cost of worl
and materials furnished defendant in tn
construction of building erected for he
on three lots, and prays Judgment for tn
amount and recognition of her privilege Of
said lots, and that the same be seized an
sold to satisfy her claim, interests and costs
The answer is general denial. Defendan
AYERS that if such materials were Furnishes
it was at the request and on the credit an
responsibility of one Charles Matthews, witt
whom he contracted in writing for the ereC
ton of said buildings. and this contrac
was duly recorded. There was judgmen
of non-suit, and plaintiff appealed. Their
is shown a building contract between de
PENDANT and Matthews, who, it seems, befor
finishing the work absconded. 1t appeeri
that Matthews ordered lumber on one O
two occasions for defendants building
One witness presented bills for the lumber
Another states William Eagan, son G
defendant, came several times to inqulr
about the lumber ordered and requested
to be sent on; that he requested the lore
man to keep him informed of all the lum0e
furnished; that Eagan, with contractor
picked out doors, and said they need Q
under no apprehension about the pay. On
witness saws material was charged [
Eagan. Defendant, Mary Eagan, says sh
never entered into any contract wit
| plaintiff; that she did not authorize he
son or any other person to contract to
| lumber or material; all settlements wei
, made with Matthews. Judgment is, Their
fore, affirmed.
No. 1914. Jean Joseph Pujol VS.. Thoma
} Fawcett--FrOm Fourth District COurt.-Al
t peal dismissed and the Judgment atirme
with ten per cent on the amount for friv
No, AVS. TeutOnia National Bank {
New Orleans VS.. II. Loeb g. Co.-From th
Fourth District Court-Plaintiff sues on
promissory note for $25S6 drawn by defen'
ants to the order of and Endorsed by Gret
ner, Winehill g. Co., August 20, 1871, d.
four months after date. The defense is thi
plaintiff is not the owner of the note sue