New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-02-07
'l,oURr.KxUOleD.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1875.

| UsiteA States District Court.
| IN BANKRUPTCY.
Maurice Kranz was adjudged . baskrup1
| by Register Kellogg on the fourth instant.
| LIBELED.
The New Orleans TOwboat Association
has lbeled the ship Hannah Morris for vic
| lation of q towage contract. in amount
| 1897 20.
Superior District Court.
PETITION.
Wright 4. Fish petitions for Judgment
| against the city of New Orleans Cor fifty.
Royal and Cont streets, occupied by him
| az register of cOnveyances, in amonnt &24SO.
| This amount was paid by him, personally,
while ignorant Of the fact that in law the
corporation of New Orleans was bound for
the same.
PETITIONS.
Louisiana NatiOna. Bank We. f. Rilsbury ct
al.-The petition of Intervention of John
Klein, who says that he is interested in the
result of this suit, both individually and as
agent, and ia anxious to intervene for the
protection of his aforesaid interest.
That by an act of the Legislature, ap-
proved September IA, 1868, it was pro
vided, among other things, that the Board
of Commissioners Of Metropolitan Police
shall, at stated times, make a financial esti
mate of the sums required for the annual
expenses, and that the said commissioners
are empowered and directed annually to
order and cause to be raised and collected
by tax upon the estates, subject to taxa
ton according to law within the city of New
Orleans and the parishes Of Jefferson and
st. Bernard, the sums of money necessary
for the expense of the Metropolitan Police
D strict.
Furthermore provided that the salaries Of
said mem bers of the Metropolitan Police
force should be paid by their drawing war
rants or checks or order on the treasurer of
to the amount of funds in the treasury to
the credit OF the board. That at no time
has the treasurer had enough of funds in
his possession to pay said warrants, for
which it was provided that each parish in
the metropolitan district should receive in
payment of licenses and taxes the said Me-
tropolitan Police warrants, 80 as to enable
the said employees to sell said warrants.
whereby a market value to said warrants
has been created greatly in excess of
other paper, or of scrip Of the said city.
That trusting in the validity OF said law,
he purchased a large number of warrants
issued by said board for salaries and OK.
penses incurred prior to the first of January,
1874. amounting to upward Of $40 600, which
he now holds, and in which he will suffer
an irreparabl loss and damage unless the
said city receive said warrants for licenses
for the year 1875; he also represents numer-
GUS other parties, who nave alsO purchased
said warrants, in the sum Of 5000
Wherefore he prays for leave to intervene
and be made party to said suit, and also
that the injunction be dismissed.
Leave to file Intervention granted by
Judge Hawkins.
NJ H.
ct als-Messrs j. w, Thomas, Alfred Shaw
and A. C. Lewis, attorneys for John Klein,
intervenor, have filed q motion that the
Louisiana National Bank, the city Of New
Orleans and Z. Pilsbury, Administrator of
Finance, show cause on Thursday, the
eleventh instant, why the injunction issued
therein should not be dissolved
Fifth Diairict Court.
Judge Cullom delivered the following
opinion:
Mrs. Mary May, aided. etc., vs.. Patent
Roofing Company, ct al.-This cause 10 now
before the court on motion for new trial
on the grounds: First, that the plaintiff is
married woman and was never authorized
to institute and prosecute this suit, either
by her husband or by the court; twO that
no EVIDENCE was fled On the day the default
was proved up aud Judgment rendered, and
none filed up 10 the date of the motion, and
third, that the court in rendering judgment
against Il. j. West, George E. Seers and
Thomas S. Elder, who were released from
any obligation by the laches of the holder of
the note sued on; that demand of Judgment
was made on the seventh day OF December,
1874, whereas the note became due and
exigible on the fifth of December.
In support of these propositions Of law
and of fact, the court is referred to the fol-
lowing cases: Margaret Kent va. Anthony
Monget, administrator, AR p 172;; Though
it is we'll settled that dilatory and declina-
tory pleas must precede the contestatiO Tits,
yet if the petition disclose total want OF
legal right or authority, it may be acted on
by the count below at any stage of the pro-
ceedings, though not pleaded. as where
married woman sues in her own name with.
out alleging that she is authorized by her
husband. Such defect could not be cured
by any waiver on the part of defendant
G. p, art LOG; "a married woman, whether
she be OF age or minor, can not
appear in court against any one with
cut the authorization ty of her husband,
although she may be public merchant
carrying on her trade separate from him.
unless she has obtained separation from
bed and board by virtue Of a judgment duly
Cochrane ct al We. G. A. Miller, admins
traitor, 10 A., p. lao, "a Judgment by
default creates a tac;t joinder of issue
and no dilatorry exception. can be
peaded after it. A special denial is
necessary to put party upon proof Of the
representative capacity in which he Sues
Sarah Stone Va, Sexton, Seymour e. Co, 5
An, p. Ga. "Where married woman
brings suit and obtains judgment with
out the authorization OF her husband and
the defendant appeals, she can not have the
appeal dismissed because her husband
was not cited with her to answer the ap.
peal. In such case, the cause will be re-
maEded to enable the wife to obtain the
authorization of her husband to institute
the suit" Keys ct al. vs. Nettles, II H., p.
3S2 "Where the wife is a party plaintiff,
aud falls to produce tho necessary proof of
the authorization by her husband to sue,
the court. when Justice requires it, will re-
nand the case for further proceedings"
the petition of the plaintiff read as fol-
lows: THE petition Of Mrs. Mary May,
separate in property from her husband,
Thomas p. May, ard herein duly assisted
aud authorized by her said husband, and
both residents Of the city of New Orleans,
respectfully shows, etc, che did not ask to
be authorized BY the court to stand IN .judg
ment, nor is there any proof that the hus-
band authorized her in any manner to do SO.
A default was taken, which in due time as
HouO Hu"A W ouihtIoAU pfool, uo answer
having been filed. and no exception taken
q Hmi''e iiis. to the capacity of the plaintiff
tOappear in court. The evidence offered
was the note sued on, the protest and notice
Of protest thereof; they were produced at
the time, were among tie papers, and formed |
a part of the records of this case when the |
default was taken. December -. 1874, and |
wheH Judgment Was rendered, January 4, !
1875. Indeed, they were made a part of |
the petition at the time of filing the suit, |
aud OF course were fled simultaneously by |
tho clerk. Having been offered il evidence. !
there was no necessity for producing and |