St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1881-07-16
Abstract of Supreme Court Decisions

| leu PERJURY, ana prleQ, cOnVlcIeu anu Still
fenced to five years imprisonment at hard
labor in the State penitentiary. Judgment re-
| Versed on account OF informalities IN the pro
ceedings, and the case remanded for further
| proceedings, the defendant remaining i'll
| custody.
| State of Louisiana VS.. Hilaire Francois. APP
peal from Avoyeiles. Exactly the same as the
preceding case.
Succession Of Auguste Picard. Appeal from
Lafayette The deceased left widow, his
second wife, without children, and son of age,
| by his first wife. The widow applied to be
administrators of his estate, and after public
and furnished bond. Afterwards the son ap-
piled for the administration, on the ground
that he was entitled to preference, and the
| widow had notlegally qualified. His opposition
was sustained by the lower court, and she
| appealed. The widows bond was accepted by
| the clerk without any order from the judge;
pointed administrators of her husbands sue
| cesAipn, and the opposition of the son was not
| too Tate, Notwithstanding the expiration of the
ten days public notice; and that between the
| beneficiary heir OF age, and the surviving wife
| without issue, the former must be preferred
| Judgment confirmed.
State of Louisiana VS.. Henry J. Brown. Ap-
| peal from Grant parish. Defendant was tried
| for murder, and convicted OF manslaughtcr
and sentenced to ten years Imprisonment. The
Indictment was found in Rapides parish, and
| the case tried i'll Grant parish by change of
venue on petition of defendant. The defend
| ant objected to the minutes of the proceedings
| of the Rapides court in the case, being received
| as evidence OH the trial, on the ground that the
| same was not authenticated by the seal of
| court; the judge overruled the objection, on the
ground that the defendant was like all appel
liant, and had no right to object to the record as
| brought from the other court On this point
| the Supreme Court reverses the decision of the
lower court, and remands the case to be pro-
| ceeded with according to law.
| Julie Cormer, admx., VS.. Theodore Deval
court, admr. Appeal from Lafayette. The
plaintiff as administrator OF the succession OF
Placide Guilbeau, Instituted suit June 29th,
| 1874. against Theodore DevalcOurt, administra-
| tor of the succession of Leontine Gullbeau
| on promissory note for Sl736.05. bearing eight
per cent yearly interest from date, drawn by
said Leontine Guilbeau, authorized by her
husband, June 18th, 1864 Defendant alleged
| want of consideration, and plead prescription
OF one, three, five and ten years. There was
| Judgment in the lower court Tor defendant and
plaintiff appealed. AS defendant was separate
| in property from her husband and managed
her own affairs and as the note was given in
| renewal of one previously executed by her.
and acknowledged as her own debt, and there
being no proof offered to show that the
| sderatiOn was not for her benefit, the only
question to be considered is that of prescription
In 1869, before the expiration OF five years from
maturity sof the note, plaintiff sued and OBJ
| tt ned Judgment on it, which Judgment, on
appeal to the Supreme Court, waSannulied, and
a Judgment of nonsuit rendered. Another suit
was brought, after prescription had accrued
from date of maturity OF the note. Plaintiff, to
show an interruption, plead the institution OF
tlle preceding suit and the service of citation
and petition therein on defendants attorney,
and an alleged compromise or agreement i'll
1872 between plaintiff and heirs OF defendant
acknowledging and recognizing the debt.
Defendant denied that the attorney who ac-
knowledged service of citation had been en-
ployed i'll the suit and that his acts were null
and void, and that the alleged compromise or
agreement in 1872, was made after prescription
had accrued, and by parties without authority
Held that the acknowledgment OF service OF
the petition in the preceding suit, by the
attorney was done without authority, and that
the proceedings in that suit did not interrupt
prescription. Even if the compromise or agree
nent had been made by proper authority,
which the evidence does not show, it was made
after prescription had accrued and not being
in writing, did not operate a remuneration.
The service curator ad hoe of IA minor,
must be made in person or at Ills dOmlc1l, and
waiver of citation by such curator is not sutfi-
Gent Judgment affirmed.
David FL. Lyons VS.. Calcasieu Parish Appeal
from Calcasieu. Plaintiff sues the parish Of
Calcasieulfor an amount due him sheriff for
fees in criminal cases, maintenance of prison.
ers and attendance on court. His accounts
were approved by the clerk of court and the
presiding Judge and by the police jury. There
is no proof to show the alleged illegallty of the
charges for services that were proved to have
} been rendered at legal rates. Judgment affirmed
in favor Of plalntlH.
Mary Ann Petit, wife, vs. Stevens & Seymour
Appeal from st. Landry. The defendants had
seized and sod the contents OF store as the
plaintiff in this suit. against whom they had a
iudcment Plaintiff alleges that said goods
were hers, she being sepa cate in property from
her husband, and brings this suit for is 0O
damages. The lower court gave Judgment fol
defendants. This is a case of facts. The evil
dence conclusiyely satisfies the Supreme Court
1st That plaintiff did not have possession Of
the goods seized; I'd, That she was not the
owner thereof; Sd, That Abraham Millspaugl
was both owner and possessor. Judgment
affirmed in favor of defendants.
State of Louisiana VS.. Zeon Touchet Appea
from Vermillion. The defendant was prOsecu
for larceny, and he waived Trial by jury, anG
elected to be tried by the judge. He was con
| yicts d, and asked for a new trial, which was
| granted. At the next term OF court. he asket
| to be tried by jury, and the judge overruled hi
motion to that effect, on the ground that having
, right to demand it. FROM this ruling he liza.
) appealed. Held that the right to trial by jury
! is Constitutional, and that the defendant wa
, entitled to a jury trial the second time though
he waived it at first, if he asked for it in tim
, not to defeat the ends OF justice. JudSmen
] | reversed.
The State Of Louisiana VS.: Herman +. Poland
} | Appeal from Orleans. The defendant wa
+ prosecuted for embezzlement, and the jur,
. returned verdict of " guilty Of petty larceny.
y Three errors are assigned against the verdict
: 1st, where the evidence shows larceny whel
] ENFORCEMENT is charged, the verdict may be
: mot guilty of embeZzement, but is guilty o
larceny" The point has no force. The vterdic
has precisely the same fe m t ana LIS IS par
+ the defendant was prosecuted for embezzle
i | ment as agent" merely, he could not be foun
= guilty of larceny under section 1856 K. s.. TN
DC: at also has no force, nd it is presumed tina
e the evidence justified the verdict. 3D., 1T l
objected that the statute only authorized
verdict for " larceny and not for T. petty Ian
j, ceny" In view OF act l24 OF 1874, this obJectlO
q is frivolous. Judgment affirmed.
8 Thomas B, Hopkins VS.. Louisiana Wester
Railroad Company, Appeal from Lafayette
n The plaintiff is appellee IN this case and move
- to dismiss the appeal. The motion is sustaine
and the appeal dismissed on the ground tina
}. tied by the decision OF arbitratOrs and annie;
a BILE cOmpounders, to whom the parties lntereste
had submitted their dispute, and the court
z have no right to disturb this decision.
y, , The State of Louisiana VS.. George Moultr
|, A opeal from Vermillion. The defendant wa
1, tried for larceny, and found guilty OF recelyin
NJ stolen goods. The defendant appealed on I'll
~ grounds that he had not been all4 Ted time
; procure the attendance of Witnesses and tia
10 .aving been tried for larceny he could not l
= found guilty of another offense, receivin
v | stolen goods" Judgment annulled on bot
= grounds, and the case remanded for new tri'
according to law,
Succession of Mrs. Jane Hopkins. Wn
W A. Robertson, executor; opposition OF Mr.
iberia. The charge of the testamentary eXec'
tor OF two and a half per cent commissions @
tie amount OF the inventory OF the succession
n hs gnha that he had
u ty had not been in his possession, but by
l. compromise and settlement among the partit
y interested, it had been put in the possession
~ the opponent, Mrs. Land, and therefore he w;
oL had not performed. The opposition was sustain
se ed by the lower court Held, on appeal, til;
is d" there is not the slightest foundation for I'll
:, opposition, either IN law. reason or justic
IL The executor under the will had full seizin
n the estate and is entitled to two and a la
q, per ceut commissions on the value as dete