New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-02-12
COURT RECORD.
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY II, 1876.

United States Circuit Court.
Present Hon. w. B. Woods, circuit
Judge.
United States We. r. Stewart Dennee.
Conspiracy IN attempting to defraud the
United States in the cotton cases of C.eve-
land & Mills Vs. the United States.
Same We. r. H. ShannOn.-Ssme charge.
Bond in each case fixed at 5000.
Same We. August Haggaman:-Embezzie-
ment of National Bank funds. Bond OF
$500.
Same We. Patrick Harnan-Conspiracy,
etc Bond of $4,000.
Superior District Court.
Gee. & Atkinson We. New Orleans, St.
Louis and Chicago railroad.-On promissory
note of $2639 10.
r. s Howard, receiver, etc, vs. F. Hoef-
ner-Suspensive appeal from order OF trans
fer from Fifth District Court on plaintiff
petition allowed, the original suit in the
latter court being F. Hoeffner VS.. Louisiana
Mutual Insurance Company.
State ex rel. L. L. Mayenno ve, George
B. johnson, State Auditor.-RelatOr alleges
the purchase of property in the Second Dis
trict, at Q tax cOllector'e sale, in July, 1879.
under act No. AZ OF 1874; that he has paid
the amount it was adjudicated for, and all
costs, etc. and prsys for q mandamus COM
pelling the defendant to give him title
under the law. Ruie nisi issued returraDle
February Is.
Superior Criminal Court.
INFORMATIONs.
Fmbezzlement - Jean Duriel, Peter
Krane.
Falee imprisonment-H. S;e-s, Me:1opoi
| tan Police officer.
on TRIAL.
State ve George Scnlosserger and Henry
| oppersmi.n.-Euobe,y Of Mrs. PeIra-t,
December 20, ls7jJ Of 1903.
F1rs, DISTRICT Court.
PLEADED GUILTY.
| liam JOhE EsOI.
Assault ard bs:teIy-John Duffy.
| sESTESCED.
| E. Gautiere. assault. etc, $40 fire.
| Fifth District Court.
| Judge Cullen rendered the following
decision:
Fisher & Wood vs P C. Montgomery
| ct all an unahle 20 agree with the views
| expressed By the defendants counsel as 70
the application o: the authorities cited. Ny
opinion is tina. they have Go controlling
application TO this case. They are directed
to and in eluc;da.ioD of q different class:
Had the plaintiffs IL this case had knOwl.
edge Of the ownership pro hoc rite OF the
charter mere cOulO De 20 OGunt OF t0e
correctness Of their position. But l know
of no rule of law which makes i: ircum
bent on furnishers OF supplies 70 vessels to
take notice that tine ac.uai ownership has
been transferred bv charter 20 owners pro
| hac cite. As between the actual owner anG
the chartering party, they are no doubt
correct. When there is no knowledge o
the change Of ownership parties furnishing
supplies to vessels have the rig ght to presume
that it is unchanged. A privilege or the
vessel only with an unknown owner nigh
in many instances prove trap fol
those dealing in good faith. When yes
sci is duly registered as belonging to ;
particular party, persons furnishing her are
not bound to know that there exists quail;
fed ownership IN some other persons l
they be informed of it by any means, thel
they must look to the qualified owners, be
cause they are presumed to give credit 4
them. In this case the plaintiffs show tina
they had NO knowledge of the fact that tn
vessel had been chartered, and a vessel wa
given to the real owners. Judgment fo
plaintiff L. 335; l Conck. Ad., page
oi-5; Story, 455, 4s6, 56e, 572