The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1885-08-29

ne ID genera
though he ma
tiff, who cou
matter, did nd
that plaintiff
under the lay 1llge
rected; nor shown H.
where tbs perty assessed Is
there is person. by the name Of
Maroelin Bourg, palculatei to misles
the Bourg intendAd.
We consider the objection az 10 m
mer more technical than sonnd. The
]ect of the law is to reach With reasond
certainty, and this hes been done In
instance.
In regard to the misdescription conten,
ed for, it will be percsived from the extracl
OF the assessment rolls offered in evidence
by the plaintiff, that in 1873, 1874, 1876 and
1876 the fifteen acres assessed against BourQ,
Auguste Marcelin, are bounded by P. Stir
hing and j. A. Aucoin and in 1877 the seven
teen acres assessed against Bouro, Marcelin
are bounded by Joe Auccin and William
Stirling and in 1880, 1881 and 1852 by Z. Gil
rolr and Stirling Williams. The witness
Stirling Williams says he has a son living
with him whose name is Paul; that Mar
oein Bourg's property adjoins him above.
In his petition plaintiff asamits that JOSEF
A. Aucoin and Etienne Giroir bounl
above. Thus, 3t p afo1
Bourg is b6hnded above by
coin and by Stirling below.
intended for Paul Williams
Stirling for Stirling Williams
We know of no law in md
Diary which makes the exacf
mental. The names by whid
generally known satisfies he h
boundary of property by Asssse>-.- 4l
not pretended that any ironvenience has
arisen from the boundapf fas give1sas the
names indicated; nor ifkshown tht plain
tiff has availed himselABf the right accord
ed him by law. in dw time and place, to
have these boundans corrected. Further
more, from the actof sale to Stirling Will
iams, which plai1tiff himself Introduced, it
appears that At this time, instead of the
Misses Bourg, the said Stirling Williams,
his neighbor now bounds him. So, in re-
ality, it is clown, that plaintiff is bounded
above by Giroir and Aucoin and below by
Stirling Williams, ergo, Aucoia and Stir
ling bond him; and in matters of ASSESS
mentAnd in locating properly by his houn-
day, we find to to all inteuts and purposes
ahfficient description of The property COM
claimed of by plaintiff as Inadequate. Il
As regards the noncompliance with the l
law in observing the conditions PRECEDENT +
to the validity of tax sales we find thereare I
no grounds of complaint against the Sher- =
i'll. The taxes for 1880, .s81 and 1882 were
not included in the Sheriff's advertisements td
it embraces all taxes due psior 1st January, Y
1880. It is true that tho ID! p, fos the 3
years 1880, 1881 and ire we 4. for on r
the day the adjudicatio, ,,sout it e
must be remembered that thas ea1es bore
on the property, and'were assum-
able by the purchaser and he having ac-
quilted the same did not in any manner
initiate AGAINST the validity of his It'll .o-
ouirex at the time and which relates to tai,
es prior q 3lst December' 1873.
In regard a the objection raisetrss9 ~
the advertisement being defeot will
state, that from e7assss l[lg u jour
nal, the Pioneer Of Assumption, Vfered by
plaintiff, the description given the property
on the two occasions when adjudicated TO
the State and afterwards to Mrs. Blanchard
are identical except fuller than that given
by the Assessor by locating the property on
Bayou Lafourche This more ample de-
seription the Collector had the authority to
make nnder section 3 of act 81 of 1882.
1'ha law in force and under which the
State ,couired her title to this property and
hacame perfect and irredeemable
was Act aS OF 1857
Az nroceedings by the Assessor and Tax
Collector seem to be regular, and the deed
of tho Sheriff SO states. Subsequent pro-
,eedings leading up to the acquisition by
Mrs. Blanchard seem also to have been reg
liar and likewise 30 stated in her deed &C.
Iuired from the Sheriff in notarial form
passed before r. ]. Gilbert on the 18th day
# December, 1884.
These deeds the law declares to be pyima
acie proof of theiE contents. The plaintiff
las taken upon him self to rebut the p1'in.a
dse:s character of these instruments, but in
,ur opinion has failed to do so, and they
low gain strength by their verify having
,een established.
Olnia presunlentur rite esse acta.
1t is objected to act No. 50 of 1884, under
which defendant derived her title, that sec.
thereof is unconstitutional.
As we have reached the conclusion Lead
ng to our Judgment without reference to
he section i'll question, it does not become
70 pass upon the constitutional
sue scr up. Courts vi justice will always