New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-01-14
COURT RECORD.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY IL. 1875.
Fifth District Court,


Fifth District Court.
The following is an abstract Of Judge
CulOm's opinion:
Edwards ct al. vs. Chatfraix & Agar
Plaintiffs brought action to recover damages
OF defendants as per a detailed bill made.
1t appears from the evidence that Chatfraix
d Agar had. in sui: No. 1863 Of the Superior
District Court. enioined proceedings Of the
plaintiff in the present cause. The case
went to the Supreme Court. Edwards &
Son having claimed damages for the illegal
suing out OF said Injunction. That tribunal
decided the merits, but failed to allude to
the claims of Edwards & Son for damages
incurred. The Judgment. as far as it went,
was availed of Edwards & Son. but as the
court neglected to pass upon the question
OF damages, they have instituted this
action for the special purpose of recovery.
defendants, Chatfraix q Agar, interpose
the exception of thing adjudged. 1t was
submitted to this court, Overruled, and
Judgment awarded as prayed for. Attention
being directed exclusively to the merits Of
exception, under impression that 1t was
appoalable. and wishing to obtain from the
Supreme Court a decision on the point
whether total ObliviOusness to the merits
OF the claims set up and urged before it is
to be considered a thing adjudged as to
them, actuated the court in Ovecruling the
plea of res judicata. 1t is now on rehear.
ing, and it is made manifest that the dam.
ages shown to have been incurred are not
5ufnClent IN amount to make the case
appealable. Following the teachings of
presidents in somewhat similar cases, it is
compulsory to decide on the merits. The
former ruling was erroneous In pronounc.
ing the oral opinion OF the court the impress.
sion was expressed that precedents were
against the conclusions arrived at. but that |
1t was deemed desirable, promoting the |
should be again required to consider the |
question. In the case of Robertson ct al. VS.. |
Penn, l.. Repts p. 81, referred to by plain.
tits counsel. but little is found analogous
to this case. The decision does not sustain
the views of counsel, while the opinion or
remarks OF the court are only remotely |
favorable to them. Defendants counsel
cited various cases, some partially. others
strongly resembling this. Spencer VS.. Banis.
ter, IL A., 766; Williams va. Painspade.
opinion book No. %, p. 463: Erwin VS..
Bissel, IL L.. 80; Laub vs.. his creditors. IN.
>, 43O; Delahaye vs.. Pellerin. . NJ, i42;
Wells VS.. Compton, 3 r., LII. To which
may be added vol. Robertson's Practice,
PIP. 3 to H. where the general doctrine is
laid down that the silence of Judgment
upon claim set up in the pleadings in any
form, whether by original petition or by
subventiOn. is equivalent to a rejection
thereof. The States of Iowa. Indiana and
L
the same principle.
The cause of the present action arises ex
delicto, wherein malice and absence of
probable cause are of the essence. and |
must be alleged and shown Greenleafs /
Ev., vol 2, 8. 4l9: IL An. $50. An. 49,. IS
An. 800 as to right to claim damages for
attorneys fees in such cases. The failure |
OF the Supreme Court TO pass upon the
question OF damages. and the necessity Of
recognizing the general doctrine above laid |
down. may operate an in Justice in this case.
but as it is not appealable, there is no alter.
native but to correc: the former ruling. and
now 10 sustain the exception.
Superior Criminal Court.
This court was not in session. owing to
she ;nd:sposit!on OF Judge Atoc!la.
First District Court. Ii
PLEADED GUILTY.
l.a:ceny-Douslas Mead. J.hn Marcy:
renauied.
rIEADEi' No1 GUILTY.
AssaiIlt anu battery and !a:cenv-Charies |
CLARK. Charles Moore. Felix Green: re. !
mauGed.
Assault and ta..ery-Eiward So!ent. not
guilty.
Larceny-Aiexanier Williams. guilty.. re.
20 mercy: VI. Heint1. no: guilty. I
knowingly receiving stolen soods-Peter
shepard. not guilty.
CONTINUED. | !,
Assault and battery. e:c-Thcmas Court. q
ley.
Larceny. assault and battery. etc.-WN
lam Powers. Julia Arbuckle. C. G. Hahn. ?
o twentieth instant: Louis Pierness. in.
le:in:te!y -accused discharged on bond.
Second District Court.
The suit of Louisa Bnrgeman. widow Of r
ohm Strader VS.. Anna Burgeman. wife of
frederick Glass. ct al. was instituted, and !
&-ll., l.. sI
,unian. Maria Devany alias Mary Johnson.
larie Louise Pe.liss!er. widow Of Antoine
lender =,
The sakin. OF testimony in the Byes.y :"
case was continued.
--.---- ~ .------- p
he Romance OF n Pretty Type.Seffer. s,
4 recen. number Of Portland Oregon, J
aper tells Il pleasant: little story. to the G
blowing effect: q
st started to Join her parents. whom she 4"
as no recollection OF ever having seen.
er name;s Emma frankie. and her parents
sc IN Florence. Italy. At the age CT be. |
7een three and four years she was given
family named Stokes. who promised Ci
educate and otherwise provide 70. ID
IT. 1t seems that she was trained for In
rcus performances. and travelled with cir. La
: troupes until she was eighteen years old. NJ
hen she abandoned the business. made her In
me in Portland. and. having learned to Pa
t type. supported herself by that work Nj
ring the past four years. taking good Gil
re- of herself and winning many friends
,anwhile she had caused inquiries for her
rents to be made in Florence. these only Fl,
emily proving successful. the parents
wing also been for some years advertising
their lost daughter. Honey was cent
the daughter from Florence, with which 4
detrsy her expenses home. and by this the
10 she has probably been reunited to
se who long ago parted from hey. hoping
would be to heg advantage.