The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1879-12-27
DietFict Court.

Dietfict Court.
Thu. Business Of tho Past Fortnisht-r
Of the Judgments Against the Town
n Of D9naldsonville.
We append 3 brief synopsis Of the
business transmitted in the District
Court during the two weeks ending on
the 10th inst, upon which day the court
adjourned pntil Monday, the 5th OF
January.
] Leon Godchaqx 70. Josephine Dicharry
ct ais; exception of defendants alleging
want of interest on part of plaintiff
overruled.
Mrs. Aglae MiEe, widow of Eloi Dich-
AIRY, ct ais %. Josephine Dicharry Ct ais ;
exception of defendants sustained on the
ground that plaintiffs interest in the
community property can not be affected,
as debts Of the husband contracted before
marriage must be paid out of his separate
estate.
E. N. Pugh. test. ex. succession of
Futch, Us. Jno. D. and Mary Jane Can
tey; rule on defendant to show cause
why testimony of absent witnesses taken
on commission should not be used in
evidence, tried and made absolute. Judge
Duffel recused himself in this case and
appointed Mr.. F. B. Earhart judge ad
hoe. Case fixed for trial on Tuesday,
January 6.
c. Kline %. parish of Ascension, Bou-
LANCER at ais garnishees; taking Of evil
dence completed, argument waived, case
to be submitted on statement Of author
tiles on or before January S.
Victor Maurin %. his creditors; plain
tiff filed supplemental petition tender
ing property inadvertently omitted from
his original petition surrender accepted
by creditors and R. N. Sims, Esq, ap-
pointed syndic.
Y. Miro, test. ex. succession of Eloi
Dicharry, vs. Sheriff and Leon Godchaux,
and Godchaux %. Mirre, test. ex., both
fixed for trial on Monday, January s,
Louisiana Equitable Life Insurance
Company %. just Comes, third OPPOSE
ton Of said company; fixed for trial on
Wednesday, January Z.
Following is the full text of the judy
ment rendered in the suit of Charles An
drew johnson %. the town of Donald
sonville:
This case was taken mp according to
assignment and was tried cOntradictO-
rily.
In the year 1873 plaintiff herein brought
suit against this defendant, sub No. 1B41
of the docket of this court, upon certain
bonds of defendant, dated 3rd April, 1866,
and sought to recover Of defendant the
amount Of the bonds and interests. ETC..
etc.
The town resisted the payment on the
ground that the municipal authorities
had no power to issue said bonds; that
these bonds were simply q renewal of a |
bond of 1892, dated 3rd April. 1860, pur-
poIting to have been issued by resolu-
ton Of the Town Council of 9TH May, |
1860, which resolution did not create q |
debt of tho town and did not provide for |
the means of the payment CT any obliga-
ton of the town; that the bond Of 1860
evidenced no valid existing obligation !
of the town, and that there was no ante |
cedent debt of the town in favor of plain |
tiff which had been created by ordinance !
and for whose payment provision had
been made In the ordinance creating the /
debt which the bond evidenced, etc, etc.
From a decision rendered by the then
Judge of this court rejecting the plain
titf's demand, an appeal was taken to the
Supreme Court, and that court reversed
the judgment of the lower court and de-
creed, LIST, that the corporal ton had au-
thOrity, under act of the Legislature No
So, of 1861, to issue the bonds: and, I'd,
that the town had not shown want or
failure of consideration or any other
valid defense.
The court went on, in substance, to
say That the debt was for money loaned
and used iii paying the debts of the town
on works OF public improvements, and
that even il the bond of $1422, of 3rd
April, 1860, was not such as to bind the
town, yet, if it used the money of plain
tiff, it had authority to give him, in 1866,
consolidated bonds III exchange, and the
delay Ut ten years was legal considera-
ton for the compromise OF 1866, under
which the bonds sued on were issued, etc.
And the Supreme Court finally rem
,lered final Judgment in favor of plain
tiff for the amount due at the time of
filing Of the suit, l. e. for the interests of
the bonds due 3rd April, 1872, and 3rd
April, 1873. dismissing, as of non-suit,
plaintiffs demand for the amount of the
bonds, as the same had not matured and
were not exigible, Notwithstanding the
failure of the town to pay the yearly in
terests as they became due, etc, etc.
Now plaintiff institutes the present ac-
lion against the town to recover the in
terests due on the bonds on the 3rd day
If April Of the years 1874, 1875 and 1876,
same, and for the payment of the bonds,
now matured and due him, and interest
III same, etc, etc.
Plaintiff sets out his cause of action;
AYERS his former suit No. 1841, and refers
% the decision of the Supreme Court
thereon, certified copy Of which he an
lexes as part of his petition.
To this demand defendant pleads SUBJ
all the objections urged in the
Inswec to the first suit of plaintiff, No.
e41.
On trial plaintiff offered in evidence
he said final decree and judgment of the
supreme Court, as also the same evil
ence introduced at the former trial, and
ther testimony which was ruled out on
ormer trial, to which bill of exception
vas reserved.
1t is commended by defendant that mas
1uch as plaintiff did not interpose the
lea Of res adjndicata by special plea,
nd did not object to the introduction of
violence by him, that the whole case
lust now be decided without regard to
he decision Of the Supreme Court. A
1dgment is IS plea, a bar, and cuts
Load the INDIGNANT hv vav nf osfnpr,n1 |