The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-01-21

be condemned, In sOlido, in the whole
amount Of damages fixed by law, and
$500 special damages for attorneys fees.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
Hon. Il. North Cullom, Judge.
Mr.. and Mrs. g. Weysham vs.. Pierre
Dejean-In this case, for the reasons as
signed I'm the written opinion Of the
Court, this day delivered and filed, 1t is
ordered that there be judgment in favor
Of the plaintiff, Emma Regina Maupuy,
wife Of George Weysham, for the sum
Opinion. weysham, the real
party plaintiff in this cause, is separated
In property from her husband. She al
legeS that defendant owes TO her 1902,
value OF certain articles Of household
and bridal bedroom furniture, pur-
chased by and belonging to her In her
separate right. Defendant concocted u
claim against her Of $4O1, and swore to
the correctness oft, claiming n privilege
on her said furniture, being well aware
that IL had been paid for; that In her
absence from the city, and without her
knowledge, no caused It. to be seized
and sold and the proceeds applied to
payment Of the account rendered. She
also prays for damages to the amount OF
$1,000
The evidence that the furniture be-
longcd to plaintiff and was sold to satisfy
Dcjean's pretended privilege, is .conclu-
sive. The furniture was paid for soon
after the purchase, and though Dejean
Is shown to have had an accounting
plaintiff Is husband, II was not for this
furniture He has therefore
seized and sold her property to pay that
which she did not owe, and should be
made to pay for 1t. Since he
must have known that the furniture he
seized aud sold had been paid for, he
should pay the attorneys fee for dam.
ages i'm this proceeding, etc.
G. Joubert Il Go. VS.. AIphonse Ter
trou-'rhere was judgment for the de-
PENDANT, and the reasons OF the court
arc here given in brief from the written
opinion: =,
This was u suit on two checks, dated
November %, 1876. drawn on the Bank
of America In this city for $3.50 rs. Pc
titioncr says they received them too late
to present that day within banking
hours; that on the next day, about II u.
M, they deposited them In the Canal
Bank for presentation and collection.
That the Bank Of America and the Canal
Bank belonged ut that time to the
Clearing House Association of this city
That the next day, December 1, they
were returned by the bank unpaid. That
In the mean time the Bank of America
had failed. That thoy used due dill
gence, etc.
II is shown that on the day previous to
the LIST of December the Bank ofAmerica,
late at night, suspended payment; that
Tertrou kept deposit account in IT and
that mt the time he drew these checks
and until the suspension OF the Bank he
had several thousand dollars to his
credit. It IL evident that had they been
presented on the Goth OF November they
would have been paid. It was shown
that other checks of Tertrou were
drawn, presented and paid the same day !;
that it was usual for the Bank Of Amer
lea to keep its doors open until 4, some
Tertrou was one OF the Directors of the
Bank of America, and must have known
It would fail. The answer to this Is that
he had in 1t ut its failure over $4,000. 1t
was shown that ut least two checks
drawn after these sued on were present
ed and paid, etc, etc.