The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-02-02
THE COURTS.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Charles Dougherty of Baltimore, through
his attorneys here filed before this tribunal
suit for thirty-nine hundred dollars agains
John Clark, proprietor Of large foundry
here. The petition sets forth that Dougherty
purchased certain boilers from Clark, under
full guarantee as to their quality. These
boilers were shipped to plaintiffs plantation,
and proved defective, causing him to lose
much time, labor and detention in taking of
his sugar crop. For this he claims reparation.
SUPREME COURT.
This tribunal was engaged this morning.
Present Justices Taliaterro, WHY and Nor
gan.
number of decisions were read, amongst
them that of the Crescent City Gas Light
Company vs. New Orleans Gas Light Com
pany.
The Court decides in favor of plaintiff,
which establishes the Crescent City Company
as corporation here. The case will 60 to the
United States Supreme Court.
The decision in full will be found in another
column. The following were the opinions
read:
BY Justice W,yy: Mechanics and Traders
Bank VS.. j. Barrett. Judgment set aside
rendered for plaintiff.
Payne, Cameron & Co. vs.. Eaton & Bar
stow. Judgment affirmed.
State of louisiana ex rel. Attorney Gen
eral ct al, VS.. 3. f. Jonas. Judgment af-
frmed
By Justice Tauiqfero. Martin Kenopski VS..
Mark Davis ct al-Judgment of lower court
sannulled so far as it awards damages other
wise affirmed.
City New Orleans VS.. I. w. Patton, sheriff MN
Judgment affirmed
John Tobin VS.. Canal and Claiborne Street
Railroad Company-Judgm mt reversed and
rendered in favor of defendants.
Sam. Smith 4 Co. VS.. City New Orleans
Judgment reversed and rendered in favor Of
defendant.
B. T. Walsh vs. Canal and Claiborne Street
Railroad Company Judgment reversed and
rendered in favor of defendants.
By Justice Morgan.-F. Peppo ct al. VS..
Perkins & Hersey-Judgmen affirmed
City of New Orleans praying for the widen
ing of Poland acknowledgement affirmed.
SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
The case of the State of Louisiana vs. Gen.
Richard d. Taylor, involving the lease Of the
new canal, is on trial before Judge Hawkins
this morning. The Safe claims the nullity
of the lease, on the ground that defendant
did not comply with its stipulations
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
Judge CullOm, this morning decided in the
case of Virginia c. Howard W. Philip Werlein
the question Of the landlords privilege upon
property in the premises leased.
He says: In former proceeding before
this court entitled Philip Werlen VS.. Mrs. V.
C. Howard, judgment was rendered in favor
of plaintiff, a wrii Of fieri fdcias was issued,
by virtue Of which the Sheriff seized certain
articles of household furniture, ETC., belong
ing to defendant and sold them. The defend
ant now institutes this suit to recover the sum
of $500 of Werlein, alleging that under the
ruling of this court in suit No. 5121. the prop
erty seized and sold was not liable to seiz-
ure and she further alleges that it was
such as was necessary for carrying on her
business as keeper of boarding house.
There was some contrariety OF asserted |
opinion as to the real value Of the property
seized, and evidence was adduced to show on
the part of plaintiff that 1t amounted to $267 |
as per her specifications. The appraisement |
at sheriff's sale showed total value of 1925
SO. The Esheriff's process verbal of sale
shows that it was sold for cash at S81 Co.
The ruling of the court in suit No. 5l2l. SO
far as it exempted this property from liability |
under the lessons privilege, was erroneous,
as will appear by reference to the authorities
following, to wit: G. C. 2705- 2709 321S and
1919.
In commenting on these authorities in con-
nection with articles 2So and GA Of the Code |
of Practice and the amendatory acts Of the |
General Assembly of 1872, No. 80, and of
Goth February, 1874, in the case of Joseph |
eChardon VS.. E. Deffez, where this identical |
question was raised, this court held that ''the |
acts amendatory Of article 644, G. P. was never
intended to disturb the rights of the landlord |
established by articles 2705 and 2709 of the
new Civil Code.
That in the case of Desban VS.. Emma Pick
.ett M. Strewel, intervenor, 1G Annual, p. $50,
the Supreme Court held that Art. 28S, G. p,
may be incorporated into Art 27O9 of the new |
Code (2679 Of the old) and be consistent and
harmonious with its provisions. The several
amendments of Art. GA, G. p, cannot be un-
derstood to affect or impair the two articles Of
the Civil Code above quoted, because, as the
Supreme Court very properly says, the law
never favors repeats by implication. See also
5 An, 1872
Article GA, C. P, and the amendments
thereof of 1872 and 1874, have reference to
the execution OF judgments, which direct the
payment Of sums of money and not to the
privilege of the lessor his obligations and
rights The articles 32lS19 are emphatic
and very explicit, and it certainly cannot be
ccntended for q moment that they are repeal
ed or in any manner affected by sthe amend
ments of article GA Of the Code OF Practice.
There must, therefore, be judgment for de-
PENDANT.
Judge Cullom has labored this term SO
geiically he has cleared off the heavy
docket of his court and it is now clear Llti-
giants DESTROYS of having an early disposition
of their claims should notice the fact
ENGLISH BANKRUPTCY.
1t seems tibet the United States is not the only
country in which most of the bankrupt cases are
handled more to the advantage Of bankrupt Off
Gals than anxious creditors. Thus in late Eng