New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-11-28
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER q, 1876.
Usised States Supreme Court.

whether Mrs. Gaines is to be compelled to
wait upon the sureties until ell the objec-
tious made to the marshals return, and oil
the questions as to his good faith in the
matter of seizure of property OF the city to
Day the debt, have been settled. Her cOun-
sci contends that the appeal being decided
BY this court sgainst the city, and execution
having been issued and returned unsstisfed,
the city's sureties become 1T once liable. and
are not entitled to hsv any inquiry made
going behind the return OF the marshal.
The eureties insist that they are entitled to
have the action of the marshal investigated
and sustained before they become Iable,
and, also, that the garnishment OF Mrs.
Gaines creditors has substituted them in
her place, and that her creditors, and not
Mrs. Gaines, are now entitled to control
this proceeding.
Unbed States Circuit Court.
Presentation. E. C. Billings, district
judge.
Emma B. Jones vs.. city of New Orleans
Judgment for 1882 SO.
Superior District Court.
NJ. Lsnnes We. C. Williams ct al.-Private
markets (Msgazinel. Rules of contempt
taken.
George C. Norcross vs.. Mr.. and Mrs.
Pierre LacOste; same vs.. Pierre Lac0ste.-
Rules of possession tor property purchased
or u, e.. DuuASs LH4 COllcCGOA VI u AAAU
District. Cause to be shown December 4.
Gibson e. Austin VS.. Louisiana Mutual
Insurance COmpany.-Snit Tor 1856, or
TWENTY-FIVE per cent of 1857, reduction of
tax and assessment procured by plaintiffs
legal services, the ordinance being passed
in June, 1874.
John G. Ballentine va. Pontchartrsin
Railroad Conpany.-Ordered that the in
ventOry of D. B. Robinson, receiver, be
Glad. that ho rcOoiun tho IOCnnnfIVQ- QfH..
described; that he be allowed to sell; that
he be allowed to erect q wOOdshed, etc.
Lord Cecil VS.. Board of Liquid tors.-1n-
Prevention of L B. Binuse, alleging the
holding of fifteen similar bonds OF the
Bayou Bout and Crocodile aid series.
State ex rel. c. C. Piper We. Administra-
tor j. G. Brown.-Mandamus asked to com
pei the auditing Of claim of John Moylsn,
street commissioner, for 5000 asked Tor.
First District Court.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Rose Msxent, of assault; Lolita Kane, of
assault and battery.
NFoRMAT1oNs.
Petty larceny-Mary Love.
Assault and battery-Edw. Lacaze, Edw.
Kerrigan, William Clinton, Ann Long and
Christ. Columbus.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de-
.cisiOn:
C. II. Allen vs. James Wood.-The parties
| reciprocally asked = dissolution of the CO.
| partnership, and each that he be appointed
| receiver. An expert was appointed to ex
| anime the books. His report and the &C
| counts were referred to Mr.. George Soule.
| The defense objected to the h~omologation
| of his report. The account and balance
sheet fled by Mr.. SOule is quite lucid, and
| viewed in the light of his explanatory re-
| port of the manner in which he conducted
his examination, it cOmmends itself to my
Judgment. The mill seems to form an i'm
pOrtant object in the mind of the defendant
as rightfully belonging as to one half to
him. l can not concur in this view. Under
| the stipulations OF the contract of copsrtner-
ship, it was agreed that he should have the
| right to become the owner OF one half
thereof, provided he availed himself
of that right within q specified
! time. The evidence shows that he did not
promptly comply with the condition. Allen
was not obliged to extend the time within
which he might become the owner. Mr.:
E )ule has properly concluded that the mill
| belongs to Allen, while the use of it on
| partnership account furnished no pretext
| for ex parte remuneration to Allen. l think
he acted right in charging his account with
the item Of $26l "a paid for the insurance
| OF the mill, tor the reason that it was the
| private property of Allen, who had under
| taken to let it be used by the firm without
charge. The item OF 500 So for bookkeeping
was properly charged to Allen & Brother,
| the costs divided between both parties and
taken out of the profits. The partnership is
dissolved. Report of SOule h~0mOlOgsted
and q fee of $500 allowed.