The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-02-16
COURT NOTES.
United states Circuit Co,

not. XOur % SeTt Z, so OUNkAFEN.
COURT NOTES.
United states Circuit Court
Present. Hon. w. B. Woods. Judge.
Eighteen grand jurors answered to their
The District Attorney stated that the testimo-
ny OF Mr. Dennee. still In prison. was needed be-
ors Iha ss Gx an brine
him before said commissioner. 1t was so or
It is believed that the indictments found yes
tcrday were In the Cleveland and Mills case. This
suit was for the value Of about 500 bales Of cot
ton, alleged to have been destroyed BY the
na in 1853 The suit was first before the Court
Of Claims. Then two OF the parties claiming to
De British sp6 t. Nina Y the suit
:. On motion Of Hon. Robert 8. Dale. agent OF the
United States before the Mixed Commission the
suit was retransferred to the Court of Claims.
Superior Criminal Court.
Present. Hon. H. r. Steele. Judge.
The juries in the eases of the State vs.. Mary
Francis and Frank Paul brought in verdicts Of
L. Sylvester. on his own plea Of guilty Of carry
ing concealed Werpons. was sentenced 70 pay
me OF s2s and the costs Thereof or IN aefn,a q
Prison.
Informations were fled against Henry vii.
larceny. j. b. Jacobs for shooting with danger
Gus weapon. etc. II. Flederma4, Mary Ann Ha-
ley. for grand larceny. John Fairchile for car
al;as Rrandv fnr rf TiJla'' o''.' DIN
Findings Of the Grand Jury: State vs.. r. N.
Bernachi, charged with breach Of trust: No true
State vs. John J. Bowling: No true bill. for
manslaughter; true bill for carrying concealed
Sentenced: William Dixon. two years to the
'' STATE vs. " 5. cahoun-A nolle proseaui was
CASTOR Iarche was on trial for rape. The Jury
returned a verdict Of not guilty
-, Present. Hon. ?. I. Lynch. Judge. =
Bailey CoJnde er for orG the cpl plaint for the
sum OF $40, with special privilege upon the
IungmgRn MS, so'zea % Ioaonh racoa,e bar bna
prd @ Q! tne aastoi Hgcsoep is2; con-
g ilrmee ana divorce 9 vlhcu'o ma'ri"on'i
Present. Hon. 3. Abeli. Judge.
mf9rmafions were ied again iu Mary M Mect9r'
charged With petty Y larceny W. Frank Bradley.
charged with eatering store IN tne night tlne'
ete., ana seeonn WIN peay iaacsnyi a., pouat,
oentenced. JOnn DuMy. one Gay IN tle faIlsh
pris3n; SoscPhn III menn a4 pr, s0seph heaTs1n
one nour each IN tne iarlsn prIs0h Aiexahder
Mitchell. two months IN the farish Irison'
Present. Hon. A. L. Tissot. Judge.
His Honor rendered lengthy decree IN the
suit Of Harrison and Adelaide Dopnella VS..
ber 1875. Judgment was rendered In favor Of
petitioners. A new tria! was granted, and the
Judge says: Il have carefully examined the
Judgment heretofore rendered herein, and upon
an examination OF the facts disclosed by the re-
cord, can find not word TO- be retracted therein.
II was urged as one OF the grounds for the
new trial prayed for and granted herein. that
under our law wi, and AN OLE IL
proved BY competent witnesses, who testify that
written and ~ the tettof ana said w.t. vt
ceased by testifyin9 that they. have often seen
him write and sign his names Conceding the
testimony Of Mrs Crane and Ieary fully satisfy
its exgencies This is not the only mode of
proof recogni7ed Ok our lqris2r;n p Goo ~
G. G. In order to be valid il must be entirely
written. dated and signed by the hands OF the
Ar vi q the C. and art sna ls Of
Of testaments. = Art 1855 Of the Il. 9. @.
provides the manner Of proving Geographic tes-
bates. Although the proof that witnesses recog-
nize the testament. etc. when testament Is
presented to the court may be the only prosf adj
convincing species Of proof. l refer to the case
where two or more credible witnesses might
have seen the testator entirely write. date and
that the first mode Is the only proof.
when they are presented to the court,
"All evidence Of handwriting. except where the
tive" In this case. besides the evidence Of
Mrs. Crane and Of Leary, who, saw the will and
recognized 1t as entirely written. dated and
signed by Donnella. who showed it to them the
testimony of Clara Pinet, who saw 1t written by
the testator. This case finds its application only
where the will y presented to the court; other
wise it would be impossible to prove will that
had been suppressed ana destroyed
- snoWn ~ hT wl.nG :7s tlla. no!lhe s
maze Will 1Hat viii - Ifas.u IA we
possession oi one ~ .ne esai ~, nei a'o wil9
.o2k po7oes,9;n vi ,ne pspas ~ 'lIe " aM"d
which, w. aa.uS'ms l nu 9eho arti aAoa,
~ rclhilou ny i ; , ncaasw ,, .
.sise wnele a.e lt,a ~ Une T., Wms i.at,,
c r spv.eWe's snnu,u n, nm, no pp f
ae I9 ~ pt;a lex. f thn ~ We r. %
a. - ~ c9s ~ Tcas u;fa II ii " ,Ien
Iasen III o ny .'. W ,no T,a G,.r, W r,t
p; nj paso -. 10 o,i ,ti ,tt ~
mere s,a: sedis 70 ~ wei! sn'tln INA.
VIII tne eeatee may esei ,,. " ssfonday
exiq mi s,o ati III fr dso. FL
VIII ts.ss ~. NJ ig;t at LIZ; ,,d a,;d