New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-06-21

them. But through policy or fear they
them.
COURT RECORD.
TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1876.
Superior District Court.
J. j. Hayes va. city of New Orleans
Petitioner sued July 81, 1875. under act No.
90 of 1872, for $50 per head for the care of
smallpox patien .s, and alleged that they
were illegally placed in the City Hospital
and that of DR.. Anfoux. Judgment for
plaintiff.
Widow Emma F. Weeks va New Or
leans and Carroliton Railroad Company
Suit for 100000 damages. On trial with a
jury. Plaintiffs testimony concluded
State ex rel. Michael Carvin VS.. Mayor
and Administrators Of New Orleans.-Re
lstor alleges holding $4,000 Of wharf bonds,
received on contract between plaintiff and
defendants of August 4, 1870; sets forth
the contract to construct wharves and
take bonds ct ninetv cents, due in ten
years; that the wharfage dues, etc, are
pledged in payment; that the in.
terest was paid TO June l, 1873;
sold to Henry Ellerman, June 90, 1915, that
ordinance No. 478, Administration series, au-
thOrizes the Mayor to sign the three hun.
dred and fifty thousand dollars bonds: that
Ellerman has collected and retained the
wharfage dues till now; that he is obliged
to pay the interest but has petitioned the
Council to be released from paying it; that
the city has taken no action ON his default
that plaintiff has privilege and lien on the
amount collected by Etlerman for the pay
ment of his bonds; that June IA, 1876, the
Ellerman; and that it would be violation OF
the contract. Prayer for an injunction re-
straining the city from passing the ordi-
nance or reducing the wharfage rates, and
tor q mandamEs to enforce the contract
with EIlerman, and compel him to pay peti.
TONERS bonds. and also for Q receiver. In
junction issued on bond Of $500. Alter
native writ of mandamus fixed for June 70.
First District Court.
INFORMArIoNs.
Assault and battery-Warner Minor.
Petty ylarceny-BridgetC Cavanagh, Samuel
Emory, Louis Evens, Henry Ward.
Entering. etc.-Nelson Williams, NJ. Law
son, Peter Kaiser, Louis johnson.
NoLLE PRosEoUI ENTERED.
Gustave Lehman, James Cullen and Rose
Shafer, assault and battery; c. T. Frank,
representing himself to be an officer; John
jackson, entering. etc Adele Scott, Louise
Bernard, Mary Hall and Celestine Bernard,
petty larceny.
PLEADED GUILTY.
William D. Green of petty larceny, Ellen
Blunt and Bridget Early OF assault and
battery.
Celestine Antoine petty larceny: Jose E.
Dumas, assault and battery.
CONVICTED.
William Ferret, of petty larceny.
ACQUITTED.
Burke, alias Hungery, alias Cunningham,
of petty larceny; Louis Griffin, of entering.
etc.
Bridget Early, assault and battery, one
hour.
second District Court.
Succession of Henry Castine opened.
Fourth District Court.
Judge Campbell rendered the following
opinion:
Hugh Smith VS.. James Freret and j. D.
Rouse.-On motion Tor new trial. The
ground for this motion is that the judg-
ment is contrary 10 the law and the evil
dence The judgment was rendered by
my predecessor, the Hon. B. l.. Lynch.
The case is not sppealable, and the evil
dence is therefore not before the court
The presumption is that the judgment of
the court before which the case was tried
is correct. This presumption is conclusive
upon me as TO the evidence, because tits not
possible for me to hear it unless first grant
the motion for new trial. and this would
be equivalent to my deciding that the for
mer Judgment was contrary to the evil
dence, without knowing what that evidence
was. This consideration applies to the sec
ond, fourth and sixth grounds urged by
counsel for defendants for new trial.
The remaining grounds are the third and
fifth, az follows:
3. That if the plaintiff ever had claim
against these defendants, then this claim is
barred by prescription, excepting small
part thereof.
5. That the Judgment is erroneous in de.
creeing the plaintiff entitled to privilege
upon the property of the defendants.
AS to the first of these grounds.
the third in the rule, find that
the question whether the law quoted
applies to this or not again depends
upon the evidence. For aught know. the
prescription may have been interrupted by
an account. l find an account filed, and l
find an account book filed, with sundry
amounts received on account thereon. The
Judge before whom this case was tried may
have found Acknowledgements of accounts
or other facts which interrupted the pre-
scription claimed. This depends on the evil
dence that was submitted. Or he may
have found from the evidence that
the prescription OF one year did not
apply All this is matter depending upon
the evidence adduced on the trial, and not
alone upon matters appearing on the face
of the record, and as the Judge before whom
the case was heard rendered his decision in
favor of the plaintiff, I am bound to pre-.
sumo that he heard evidence which satisfied
him that the prescription of one year did
not apply, and am bound to presume that
his Judgment on the evidence is correct.
The same reasoning applies to the judg-
ment of the court decreeing the plaintiff
entitled to privilege on the property of
the defendants.
In this motion for new trial, l am not
called upon to indorse q judgment Of my
predecessor; l am called upon to open up
and revise judgment. The presumption
is that the Judgment was in accordance
with the law and the evidence. An appli-
cation for q new trial should disclose 8
probability that justice has not beenidone.
The probabilities in this case are the con-
trary. The motion is refused.
The Amateurs.
Tha OrIaana Dramatic Association nas