New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-02-17

was $4,000
Alsbama Gold Life Insurance Company
vs.. City Of New Orleans.-PetltlOners al
l4ge the leasing to the city, By Camille E.
Girardev, October %, 1872, of the property
on Otleans street., bounded by Orleans, st.
Ann, Roy al and Bourbon etraets; that he
lease expired October 81. 1872; that tn ey
acqnired all Gi'ardey's rights January :,
1915, aud pray ju gment for $4,000 rent.
Judge l., nch, Judge Hawkins being too
anwrll to hold court, again presided, and
continued all Cases with preference.
Superior Criminal Court.
NOLLE PROsEQUI.
Assault and battery-Charles Ricknagel
and Patrick Meehan.
State W. Alfred Capps. Murder.
ACQUITTED.
State vs. CASTOR Larcae, rape-Verdict,
not guilty.
First District Court.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Frank Bradley, charged with entering
store, etc % petty larceny; William Ionty,
Of petty larceny.
INFoRMArIONs.
Keeping q banking house and banking
games, at which money and things repre-
keut ny money are bet and hazarted, Will
liam Johu.on and Jules Train; capias Tor
each issued.
second District Court.
Successiens OF Prt-r Patt elson and Joseph
D. Phelps opened.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de-
cisiOp:
Mrs. F. H. Ross vs.. Charles Rose, her
husband.
Tn. defendant in this action is alleged to
have been q slave at the time of the alleged
m Arriage with peti I"ner, III January, 1912
By their Joint industry they accumulated y
small property, out OF the y. otis of which,
together with rh- wages IF tue petitioner,
his liberation from slavery was paid fer.
They Continued To live harmobiDusly to-
gether until recently, and uuul after they
had reared children and acquired property
| estimated at about $263l. IL, then drove
her from the common dOmlcllo AID took
| unto bimself another wife. Tne plaintiff
hlle ges that che Is entitled to half the prop
erty; asks for alimony and a writ OF lDjuuc
| ton to restrain him from d'spO>ing nt any
part thereof c. C., a't 49,; C. F., 3O6
To this proce. q ng ,he defendant excepts,
ON the grounds, first, no cause OF action
| shown This Is evidently not we'll taken, be-
cause taking the plaintiffs allegations as
| true ample grounds for divorce are set up, to
| wit: BaaisLment from the common dom'cle
and open ~ utery therein. On the ground,
| second, that the allegations as To the date OF
| the marriage etc, are vague and indefinite,
| in not stating the name OF the pereO1 who
| utficiated in celebra ing the marriage on or
about January 8, 1912; also, in not giving
! the names If the witnesses to the marriage
ceremony; whether the celebration was re-
| duced to writing, etc. l am of opinion that
| the date OF the marriage is sufficiently
| stated, and that it Is not usual, nor at all
| necessary, to give the name of the person
| officiating in the cele bration of the mar
| riagp, nor Of toOse who witnessed it.
IN long after tie establishment of the
| State government IN Louisiana, our Legis
| IatOrs found il necessary to legalize certain
marriages when had been celebrated Def re
| 1907. Again iu 1911 II was found necessary
| to legi-late on The sui ct tor the same pur-
pose; 50 in 1890 md 1877. 1n examining the
| sey ei al ac,s pc seu 10, this OtJctt. lnclud
| ing that uf 1868 We discover it IL haYe been
tue obvious and paramount purpose of the
Legislatures To extend eve;y reasonable
| sanction t. marriages, although entered
| into, eli her III Violation OF restrictive laws
| AZ to prtliMlnarl-s. Or i'll the absence OF any
| law at all. In looking through the COM
men aries Of different writers On the sub
! iect VIZ learn that in some of the States
there is No prescribed form OF sOlemnlzing
marriage, a,d tha, whore it has been enter
| ed into " !thuut complying With the legal
| requirement 3, they are not stricken with
nul.lty. Ser w. ker's Am Law, page 246,
| aud the very num.r .rOus authorities there
| cited, some Of which, says the au hOr. g. 30
| far ~ to Say that y marriage acc riding To
| the common law would be valid, thou, b
| none Oi the r-qu'siti0ns Of the starutrs be
| complied with Such is the tendency in
| all r. fined ccmDunlies for the palpable
reason that the relations Of husband and
| wife are universally considered OF the very
! highest practical interest Ii this be true
| of the G. mGnon law. the theory Of which as
to woman ia to u great extent slavlsh, 1t
may bo Il uch uOre aptly sald Of the civil
| law, under which wuman ls raised to her
| rightful equality. Ii public policy be to
| hold msrriage IA nearly indissolnbl- as pos
sibl-, its cOrrslative % regard 1t with favor
wherev. not entered lnO in violation OF
| prohibitive laws. Marriage is held "a a
contract jure gentiunI, requiring nothing
for its validi y between p-reons capable Of
entering sDtu it but tho consent of
! the parties t. 1t. Kent sa.s, vol.
2, p. 81, 5 ed: at is not necessary
| that CLERGYMAN -lOlid be present
to give validity TO the marriage, though
1t IL, doubtless, very becoming practfce,
| duu eul'd"Io ~ tno sol6tD0IGy OIL tE6 OCCA
sion. The consent OF ,he parties may be
declared before mags rate, or simply be-
fore " :ns sses, or subs' qlentiy confessed
| or acknu~l.' cd or the IN ,rriase may be
! even inferred fiem continual cohabltation
and r. presentation as husband and wife,
except in cases Of civil action tor adul.
terry, or pubic prosecutions for bigamy or
adultery"
Suoh are the views Of the commentators
on the common law, ami there il no doubt
lug the tact that unuer it statutes we're
enacted, stipulatlug certain formaIities and
prerequ slies, as ha- been done III l. 'ulsiana.
| The only Qu=-tiun deem n cessary 10 tx
amine III this case l., we're the plain III aud
defendant capable Of contracting marriage
! under The la n they existed in Louislsha
in 1872, the defendant being slavef
| may here remark thai article ninet, -One OF
the Civil Code Ut 1925 Was idohfiosl ~ its
! scope with The eOMnon law ON the subject.
See b., p. 3i6 IL declared. "a does article
ninety Ut the Revised Civil Code. that "as
l. fhH lnV NOna 6.ea ri IN n n nthoP vi AVE