The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-02-03
COURT NOTES.
United ss.tss Circuit Court.

Trsss 81
United sestes Circuit Court.
Jno. P. Tweed vs. the Louisiana Mutual Ipsqr-
once Company Continued on motion Of Judge
Merrick. on account Of the absence OF counsellor
Patrick Harmon. indicted for classifying certi-
ficate of inspection of 100 packages OF spirits.
was arraiened, waived the reading Of the indict-
ment and plead not guilty.
A. =. Brian was accepted az one OF the sureties
Through inadvertence, the amount of The
Judgment in the case of Case, receiver, VS.. w. X.
Crane. was stated to be- $40. 1t should have been
The case Of Ellery, wend Il Hoffman vs. A.
Brown 4 Co. continued from Yesterday. was re-
sss' i ss wEo we're considering the case q
Ellery Wend A. Hoffman VS.. A. Brown Co.
have agreed upon 4 verdict. which Is in their
possession, and which Will DO handed In on the
opening OF the Court to-day.
Finh District Court. sl
Az abstract Str Of ths SpiniSn Of the Court t de lily
ered y w VIZ sa e e III aDs wre
Beard ' x the pariss 81 Martin. payable 70
his own order. and by him endorsed. dated Dec:
ts he a sae rs bore s Per fS1s
from maturity. It was secured by vendors
privilege q one \, aadyasd hs W. q
ths t%s e the w sale Of the pant :is was in
cure which and i9r the pmr2gcse Of getting other
: The def* 70 them was not paid at maturity. and
sf N gh o1 pedsd
with other notes which they held as their own or
s Us s% IL s Hes sg s az r. sEs ss s hs
s would Ina have rctSrqed To sois % Pslngk !"
N. asR s GIVE Wiz e5a yss e asfaas
to DO the owner thereof, has sold the norteaged
property and sold II for It's notes payment in
s sa 4 : das 70 ~ wiz ne h sEs as he
her Willingness and Eeadiness to pay, Wilt a
Co. at any time he will return it to. her. She
prays for 5000 damages, caused BY the transfer
Wilt Go. set up that the action Is premature,
as plaintiff and their co-obig9r have never
sixsfb "a WIFE, VIE Co. have right to dispose of
the Wss a e p ssyas yGnd dda ae bs% III
ton Of the pledge they having pledged It to
other parties I'm toto to secure their own in
Article sizes, Civil Code. seems to be clear as to
the first question. That requires the pledger TO
1ef"ra ss can dispose q Ne pledge. and tho
same course must be pursued in. the sale OF
property pledged. STORY On Bailments. 1907
There r was was no consent Of the pledger to take
The question raised by defendant at his right
e could not Dawn sns
ring personal liability Tor the residue Of the
''Tf IL lie second question: Which Of the parties
should put the other Ia defsuh? Primarily It
would have been the duty q the plaintiff to do
PENDANTS. the only right they had was TO hold the
amount due them and afterwards sell the pledge
N iofu fbpxar md
The defendants committed a business error
In q legal point Of view, when they pledged the
thsr l Control re- 10 have i Il r. e
would have necessitated the payment OF more
than they owed. The defendants. from failure
fnd 5aa a7 S 10 s Three ways
OF putting in default: First. by the terms OF the
contract; second, by the net Of the party. and
ne. faIfIliment o. tho contract G, g. ieil-as.
N. s. s4s. La, sss, . r. 4ss. The plaintiff hav
ing declared her readiness to perform her part
have vel been prepared 70 surrender the pledge. as
they had 10 right e make any use o. It. except
an si 6r M s he fa p 81 her 9n note
alter deductiag the amount due W, & Co.
sixth District Court,
Mrs. Astasia Debouchel, wife Of W. A. KowaI-
ski, w. w. A. Kowalsk--A judgment In favor Of
tween her and her said Husband, and also one IN
her favor and against her said husband for the
sum Of $4,000. were rendered
v, M. Carrfere VS.. A. Commagere-JudRmen
was made final In this case In favor Of the plain
tiff and for the sum OF 1906. with eight per cent
interest on 800, from August 4, 1875.
the 81 motion to transfer the cause to the United
States court was granted,
Fourth District Court.
Mrs Eva Raichle, wife Of F. Raichle, vs. Ray
mond observation-disclosures in favor Of the defen-
Mary Malay "a. WIN. Maiady ct ai.in this
case Michael Gernon. notary public ordered to
effect q partition Of the community Of acquets
and gains heretofore existing between the plain
tiff and the defendant. Said partition to be made
to conform to the DEGREES rendered herein by the
supreme Court q Louisiana and thoss rendered
trict Court OF the parish Of Orleans. excepting
such decrees as have been reversed by the
Charles VogeI VS.. Attakapas Mail Transporta-
plaintiff, Charles A. Brusle was subrogated to
the rights Of the plaintiff in and to certain
Robert p. Tendrick vs.. Mary A. Lastrays. wife.
etc. ct al.-On motion Of counsel for Schneider
and Zuberbier. and on showing to the Court the
right. title and interest OF plaintiff In and to the
claim and suit fled IN the above entitled cause.
it was ordered that the movers be recognized as
The ease Of George Norcross VS.. d. D. Gibson
Is on trial in the above court.
second District Court.
Succession Of Francois Philippe Breutte--A
rule to cause the executors to file their tableau
and accounts in the matter of this succession is
now on trial.
Superior District Court.
Mrs. Maria Ann Hoag VS.. the city Of New Or
leans and Eugene Wa9gaman, Civil Sheriff
joining the Sheriff from advertising OF selling
the Droperty described in the petition.
First District Court.
State vs.. August Ohe. IRA nolIe proseaui
was entered in this case.
In the case OF CHS Erne, we understand there
was a verdict for the defendant.
Sentences-Pcrry Robertson, convicted Of as
sault and battery, was sentenced to one day in
the Parish Prison.
Marcelin Fonteneau, convicted of stealing two
mules, was sentenced to five years in the State
Frank Crawford, convicted Of larceny was
sentenced 70 eight months confinement in the
State Penttentiary
The case Of the State VS.. Christopher Erne.
wherein the defendant is accused Of stealing
certain seltzer water bottles and altering the
brands thereon, is on trial.
Superior Criminal Court.
State VS.. c. II. Shelhy-This case was tried and
submitted to the Jury. who returned mistrial:
This case was on an information that accused
had committed robbery of a sewing machine
from the owner: The proof showed also an as
sault. The party had paid IS on o debt Of $50
Hence resortto repossess the machine. EXTRA
cara.
State vs.. Alfred Craps ct al.-This capital case