The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-02-08
COURT NOTES.

a more worthy son, he will readily re-
sign"
COURT NOTES.
United states Circuit Court.
Present. Hon. w. b. Woods. Judge.
Chas. Case. Receiver, F. +. Case. substituted
vs.. the city of New Orleans-This case, having
precedence. was called. BY consent of counsel
this cause was continued
Stang. Adrance Il Co. vs.; Mm; 7; Shearer.-
resentinR the defendant. remarked to the Court
that the case was not properly at issue. L.
Tharpe. Esq. attorney Tor the pialntln, read the
This suit seems to have been in Court since
1872 and the supplemental petition having been
filed fors years the Court REQUIRED the defend a.
it ''instanter." and he should have time to have
his witnesses.
Counsel for defendant madca motion to con-
tinue the case and he accompanied it by an
affidavit, alleging that plaintiffs had become
bankrupt. etc. The court decided that there was
defendant then fled an answer and the cause
was progressing when this report closed.
The case of Jno +: Fourton vs. the city OF New
Orleans was, on motion OF co1nsel Tor the plain
tiff and reasons suggested to the court, con-
tinued till next Friday, and the witnesses were
notified to be present.
W. r. Whitaker. ESQ. counsel for defendant,
and on consent of the United States attorney.
this cause was continued.
Strong. Adriance 4 Co. vs.. VIM: ?. Shearer.-
The judgment was for the plaintiff in the sum
Information was filed against Thomas Neil
son. seaman, engaged on the bark Almena Rob
inson, for violation OF his contract to make a
voyage. r,,
sixth and seventh exceptions were sustained
and the cause was dismissed at plaintiffs cost
On motion of the United States District Attor-
ney, the United states Marshal was ordered to
ma n n a.
tendance.
An account of Commissioner Robert H. Shan
ton Of the Court. the same, amounting to s19l 40
was approved.
Superior District Court.
Kalvalage and J. B. Connors 4 Co. vs.. Mer-
chants Mutual Insurance Company-The mo-
ton taken herein for a new trial came up tor
argument, when. after hearing counsel, the
Court refused a new trial.
II. s. Howard, Receiver. vs.. }. Haefner ct al
The rule taken herein by Edward Phillips ESD
attorney for defendant. Haefner. 70 dissolve the
Injunction herein, came up for trial. The in
junction was malntalned. =
ton of II, G. Dibble, Assistant Attorney General
and upon suggesting to the Court that this claim,
has been settled ana snat me az i Y 10
ton. 1t wac ordered that this suit be dismissed
The case Of A. Dumestre vs. Jerome Hanly, in
which = b Eusts Eq T one 81 the a tb
Mr.. Eustis was detained at home on account of
sickness in his family. the said cause was con-
Superior Criminal Court.
State VS.. Sam. Mitchell-The defendant was
arraigned on an information charging him with
assault, and plead guilty, and was sentenced to
ten days Imprisonment in the Parish Prison.
State VS.. James Sullivan, Martin Smith and
Charles Harris-These parties were arraigned
on the charge OF burglary, and plead not guilty.
The following cases were continued indeii-
State vs.. Mary Francis, charged with grand
larceny; State VS.. James and Frank Mulvey
charged with assault and battery, and the State
VS.. Frank Paul.
This court was also obtaining jurors to try
cases before it.
First District Court.
The venire made returnabie to-day cons umed
the time of the court, and five Jurors were Sc
Second District Court.
In the succession Of Hugh McCloskey, it was
ordered that the exception taken by Il. McClos
key for the reduction OF rent be cumulated with
the merits.
Succession Of Mary Killelea-The opposition
of Martin Killelea was maintained in SO far as
to cause the account filed herein to be rejected
in toto
Succession of Williamson Terry-Messrs.
Brooks .Carnes and John J. Barnett, executors.
were ordered to show cause on the 14th inst why
Mrs. M. A. Nettles and her husband, appearing
for her and the minor children, should not be
put in possession OF the property described in
petition.
Succession of Widow Jules Deiean-On peti-
ton OF heirs to be placed in possession, etc, it
th. Ar PovSr L|e a
wife of Rudolphe Huderwald, be recognized as
sole heirs and legatees of their deceased mother.
case was submitted for adjudication on the evil
dence.
Joseph o. Marindeburg and Mary A. Marinde-
burg were emancipated.
Fourth District Court.
L. H. Gardner & Co. vs.. NJ. L. Byrnes & Co.
Tho decree of the ST. pramn Court was ordered To
be recorded, and is in these words: 1t is there
fore ordered that the Judgment appealed from
be affirmed with costs and 5000 damage.
D. Landry vs.. f. Victor.-The security ON the
appeal bond was ordered to show cause on Feb
ruary 81, 1876 why execution should not issue
John P. Walworth vs. John c. stevenson.-A
appeal from the Judgment herein
was allowed the defendant.
w. W. Washburn VS.. J. n. Shawhan.-Judg
ment was rendered in favor OF the plaintiff for
the sum of $780, with interest at eight per cent
per annum on two amounts of 500 each.
Albert Puttbrese VS.. Edward Hensen.-Therc
was judgment for the plaintiff for the sum Of
s194 40,
hearing pleadings and evidence. the Court took
Georgiana Whan VS.. ). L. Irwin. Tutor etc.
The decree of the Supreme Court annulllng the
Judgment herein, and giving judgment for the
courts.
/. Bloom 4 Co VS.. W. Spencer & Co. ct al-The
seized herein. under an attachment.
released to the defendant on his giving bonds.
Adolphe Bouchard VS.. Z. I. Parker. Public Ad-
appeal was granted from the
Judgment of the 2Sth Of January, 1876. returna-
able at same time and on same bond as the first
appeal.
Judgment was rendered in favor Of plaintiff for
the sum of $780, etc.
A. K. Josephs vs. Mrs Julia NJ Thomas ct al
There was judgment for the plaintiff for the
,ege on the property Professionally seized.
This court. the Third District Court and the
Fourth District Court adjourned out of respect
10 the memory OF Alfred McCarty. Esq.
sixth District Court.
Mason's Safe Company vs.. Gauthreaux and
case was referred to the jury
docket.
r. MARTINEZ VS.. j. Estoup-This case was con-
.inued by preference till Monday next.