New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-05-09
COURT RECORD.
United States Circuit Court.
MONDAY, MAY 3, lSI 3.

MONDAY, MAY 8, 1876.
United States Circuit Court.
Presentation. w. B. Woods. circuit
Judge, and Hon. E. G. Billings, district
Judge.
Emile Seignouret vs. Mrs. Anna E. Shar
key, wife OF Xavier Letard.-Irjun junction
made perpetual.
Eustis & Urban W.. James Buckley.-Ver
dict for 5000 for plaintitfs.
United States ex rel. w. S. Peter.in vs
city of New Orleans; United States ex rel
James Waddeck va. city of New Orleans
United States ex rel. Morris Ranger VS.. city
of New Orleans.-Mandamus refused in
each case.
S b. Rendge Va. j. S. Rivers.-Verdict
Of $1,000 fOr plaintiff.
superior District Court.
Victor Reaud vs.. A. j. Redmond, tax
collector of the Fifth District Application
for an injunction to prevent the sale of q
plantation May IL.
Superior Criminal Court.
SENTENCED.
James Mull;gap, plea of guilty Of carry
ing concealed weapons, s. fine.
ON TRIAL.
State vs. Arden Eugene and Engene
Godin Murder. Killing Richard Turner
February 6, 1885, at 4 A. NJ. at ball cor
ner OF Claiborne and Ursuline streets. Jury
impaneled and Q portion OF the evidence
fol the prosecution heard-the testimony OF
the coroner and the physician.
First District Court.
INFoRMATIONs.
Assault and battery-Joe Pierce. Sally
Pierce.
PLEADED GUILTY.
James Lea, of petty larceny; PIacide
Phillips, of assault and battery.
ACQUITTED.
Petty larceny-Bob Moore.
CONVICTED.
Assault with intent to rape-JOhn, alias
George Morris, two informstions.
Petty larceny-Mlke MoDermott, Hugh
Early.
George Morris. on two convictions OF as.
sault with intent to rape, four years on both
charges.
Placide Phillips, assault and battery, two
months.
Second District Courr.
Succession of Eugene Francois Mio:on
opened.
Joseph Reilly prays to be'emancipated.
Succession of Patrick Halpin, Ann Dal-
tor-Abstract of the decision by Judge
Tissot: Aun Dalton claims to have lived
with deceased from 1860 to 1868; to have
haC three children; to have been married to
him June %, 1868; to have had one legi-
innate child, and claims the entire success
sion. Exception that she ia estOpped by
judicial admissions Of concubinage Only IL
applying for alimOny, which was rejected
as being brought against the administrator
\ a. nfh TIM,
Such was the ruling in the succession OF
Arthur Macarthur. "a party may, by his
own voluntary act, have placed himself in
a situation. as to some. matter of fact, that
he is precluded from denying See Green
leaf on Evidence, vol. l, page y; D A, -;
A., 4l6; 2 A., 269; 9 A., i6; 6 r., 4229; Is A.,
l36: % A.. 1868.
1t was recognized ON a confession in a
mortgage act. Succession of stephen
Humphreys, Henry and Catherine Baum
and Mandal VS.. Mandal, of this court.
The court doubts this. Her previous mar
riage was by priest; this only by squire.
Her religious belief would lead her to con-
slider is invalid, though persuaded it was
valid as civil contract. She was not ig-
norant of the facts, and her attorney would
not have brought the action for alimony if
she had told him she was married. Her
error of law can not destroy the force OF her
judicial admissions. K. s.. 1891. Exception
rights of the minor child. The defense also
allege the certificate to be a forgery.
On the merits. The child is the issue of
p. Halpin and Ann Dalton. Eleven wit
nesses testify to this Ten witnesses swear
Halpin said he was married or acknowl-
edged it, seven that he was called so, two
think he was and two can not cay. -Four
swear he was not, one that Ann Dalton said
it was not so, and others that they never
knew him to be, but would if he had been.
The declaration of the date must be cor
federated. See Mandal vs.. Mandal. The
general repute can establish it only in the
absence of better proof. The date of June
% must be proved. The testimony of
plaintiffs witnesses Of the journey to Ma
rion and the marriage, OF the justice and
witnesses, and the certificate and declara-
tious are sufficient, taken alone, to estab-
lish the legitimacy. But there is unim-
peachable evidence that on that very
day Halpin was in this building in the
city during the whole month of June; the
records Of the bond signed June 2, in
the Fifth District Court; of that on June
,l6 in the Sixth District Court: the docket
of the Third District Court; for June %, the
minutes of the Seventh District Court and
testimony of Palms, minute clerk OF the
Fourth District Court; the tax notice
served personally June "a, and the records
of the Fifth District Court for July 5, IL
and 81, carry conviction as Scripta virtu. 1t
ia corroborated in other testimony. Tie
marriage, therefore, did not take place June
'23. 1869.
1t is very difficult, indeed, to prove
forgery. II required circumstance like
the one hereinaDove presented to show that
the alleged marriage of Ann Dalton and
Patrick Halpin did not take place on the
twenty third day of June, 1869. l can not
admit, under the pleadings and the evi'
dence, that it took place at any other time
subsequent to that date. Let Judgment
thefore, be entered in favor of defendants
and against plaintiff with costs.
Fourth District Court.
c. T. Haupt vs. Superintendent OF the
Protestant Orphans Home.-Habeas COZ
pus for petitioners child, Mary Rebecca.
Continued to May 8.
Z. Bermudez We. l.. Flash.-Judgment
for $555 55 for plaintiff.
Anna DOhan vs. Francis Harding
Judgment of $2S94 so for plaintiff.
Fifth Distr1ct Court.
Mrs. N. E. Guerenesu 70. Felix Greeves
her Acknowledgements of $4,000 fol
plaintiff.