Case Name: Dr. D. Meng vs. the Parish of St. Charles
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1876-02
Citations: 28 La. Ann. 192
Docket Number: No. 6081
Parties: Dr. D. Meng vs. the Parish of St. Charles.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 192–194

Head Matter:
No. 6081.
Dr. D. Meng vs. the Parish of St. Charles.
Except for die sum of twenty-live dollars. hciiiír a wan-niil of die parish of Fit. Charles hi favor of one Durapnn. thin suit is for services rendered by die jdain-UJT ns a phvsieinn employed under an ordinance of the police jury, warrants issued io plainiill' for diose services are offered in evidence lo corroborate the odier evidence inlroclueod to support, plainlift’s Haim. That purl of plaintiffs elaini which rested on the, Dnra.pau warrant should not have, been allowed, under previous decisions of Ibis court. Til other respects die. judinnonl of the jodee n i/no hi favor of plaintiff is correct.
APPEAL from tlie Fourth Judicial District Court, parish of Bt. Charles. Flatjij, J..
Jamen I). Jin/iixfin, for plaintiff and appellee.
Xorl HI. 2farlin, Parish Attorney, and .Breaux, Fenner cf: Hall, for defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
Lrnrauxu, C. J.
This is a suit for services rendered as physician, under an ordinance of the police jury, and for the amount of twenty-five dollars, being a warrant issued by the police jury in favor of one Dura,pa,u. Tlie defendant filed a. general denial. In this court, the de- fenchí,nt alleges that the .suit is instituted on parish warrants and does not differ from the cases of Flagg et al. against the parish of St. Charles, decided last term, and Mathé vs. the parish of Plaquemines.
Except for the sum of twenty-five dollars, already mentioned, this suit, is for services rendered hv the employee. The warrants arc'-offered in evidence to corroborate the other evidence introduced to support plaintiff's claim. The. claim for the warrant of Du rapan should not have boon allowed under the decisions of this court in Sterling vs. Feliciana and Mathé vs. parish of Plaquemines. But in other respects the judgment is correct.
It is therefore, ordered that the judgment he amended by striking out this item of twenty-five dollars, and in other respects that the judgment. bo affirmed. The costs of appeal to in' paid by appellee.