The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1876-01-23
THE COURTS.


"' ""AANhA vs.. THE PHOENIX INSURANCE
COMPANY.
Ihls was an action on a policy Of insuranca
Tor *Io,0OO. There was another suit against the
Imperial Company Of London on another insur-
anoe lor siV,VoO. The decision in the first case
The defense SET up was that the property
burned was not worth the sum claimed by the
piainllH and that said plaintiff had forfeited his
claim against said companies BY attempting to
plaintiff
II was contended by said plaintiff that be had
no motive TO burn the property as it was proved
that 1t Was worth from s25, 900 to $50, coo, and
was only Insured for 800. 600.
1t was proved that plaintiff was not in need Of
money, and that If he had been, his credit was
such that he could have borrowed all he wanted.
IL was also proved that the main witness was
woman OF questionable character; that she was
the enemy Of the plaintiff, and had declared that
the latter had injured her, and that she would
revenge the injury if she could; that she had
procured pistol for the purpose OF shooting
him, and that she foi bore to do it; that alter the
tire occurred rhe stated that she had now a
chance to get even with MIN, that she would do
ii, and. if possible, would send him to the gal
lows 1t WAS al proved that the detectives who
testified against plaintiff knew that there was
reward offered for the convection of Whitnev and
1t was argued by the plaintiffs counsel that their
efforts to secure his conviction for arson were
actuated by the belief that their success would
rebound TO their personal advantage, mas1nuch
as tHes "Oulu Thereby secure the reward.
The jury gave verdict in favor OF the plain
tltf for one half of the amount at which the loss
was adjusted This entities him, under agree
ment, to a judgment against the Imperial L.
eurance Dnpany for like amount.
The plantlff in this case was represented bv
Air. L. ". Huntington. The defendants were
represented by Messrs W. Ii. Hunt and Major
John II. Nsw.
Superior Criminal Court.
ARRAIGNED.
Gascon Larlche, charged with rape. Pleaded not
guilty.
Lawrence Williams, charged with entering a
house III the night time armed with dangerous
weapon: Pleaded not guilty.
Mrs. Il. M. Adams pleaded not guilty.
Nary Estelle, charged with murder, pleaded not
guilty.
VIM. Remps, Geo. Phiossenger and Henry
Coppersmith, chsrged with: First, robbery; sec
ond, grand larceny, pleaded not guilty.
Bernard Baumgarden, charged with man.
slaughter, pleaded not guilty.
SENTENCED.
Kitty Mccoy, alias Donald Pet convicted OF
shooting at, with intent to commit MURDER was
sentenced to years, at hard labor, in the Louisi
ana State Penitentlary.
Superior District Court.
Lower Coast Packet vs.. James Wood. Suppl.
mental petition filed restraining James Wood
from taking any further proceeding in the sale Of
The steamer L. Hensey.
CITY TAX.
have boen obtained in the superior District
Court, have been withdrawn from the clerks
Office by the Assistant City Attorney, and re.
turaed to the Office of Administrator of Finance
New Orleans Savings Institution vs. Efing CHAN
Lawrence. Suit on promissory notes for $500
John IL. New VS.. Louisiana Central Steam Rail
road O. mpany. snit for lssal services, $4,000.
City Of New Orleans VS.. Mrs. Marie Canlope
SUIT Tor license tax.
Fourth District Court.
u Y TnF,
1irlned for 1906.
Jury cases called
Fifth District Court.
Francois Toujin vs.. Moules Francois. Defaui
confirmed for 1925
David Hughe. vs. NJ. J. Tay lor. Judgment fol
plaintiff against steamer La Belle, Capt. NJ. N
Woods, garnishee, for $3.50, being amount o
Judgment against defendant.
Payne, Denegre 4 Co. VS.. Peel h Reid. De
fault against John A. Peel on the supplemental
petition.
Sixth District Cour'.
Marie Castein vs. jacques Metre Rouzan, he
husband. Judgment IN favor of defendant re
5ecting plaintiff demand for divorce.
John Casey vs.. Geo. Waters. Judgment fol-
plaintiff in the sum or 1904 Is; and the reconYen
lonal demand dismissed with costs.
Geo. Hanning VS.. Geo. G. Norcross. Judgmen
in favor Of defendant.
Rozier, uader curator, vs. Mary E. Ratliff Q
ais. Dsfaut confirmed for S, 65S 25.
Sanford, Gilmore Il Co. vs.. IL. POrkorny. De
FAULT.
Charles Weishaar vs.. Fred Rupert. Default
Charles Heintz vs.. John Lynch. Default.
Mrs. Adele Beer vs. Mrs. F. Listennes. De
fault.
Rufus s. Rickay VS.. Flash, Lewis 4 Co. ct al
Petition filed. Petitioner showsIthat in February
1872, he entered into an agreement with defend
ants by which he was to give his whole time t
defendants interests and for which service b
was to receive two per cent on the net profits
Of said firm. Said profits to be determined OF
March l. 1876, or in case Of certain contingencies
he Was to receive certain sum for each mont
specified in the contract.
Petition shows that by the refusal OF defend
ants to make collections when they might hav
done so e large amount has been lost, by whlcl
means large sum has been lost to him. ii
ask Judgment for s1l 900 and for the further sun
of 5000.