Bauman v. Hare

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Bauman v. Hare

122 So. 729, 10 La. App. 786, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 203

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 27, 1929

DocketNo. 10,904

StatusPublished

This text of 122 So. 729 (Bauman v. Hare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bauman v. Hare, 122 So. 729, 10 La. App. 786, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 203 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff and defendant are negroes who had been living together as man and wife, though never married. Defendant, the woman, tiring of plaintiff, left him and took by force certain household furniture, wearing apparel and livestock. Plaintiff brings this suit to recover these articles, claiming that they belong to him. Defendant, though represented by counsel, did not appear at the trial. The judge a quo rendered judgment ordering all the articles delivered to plaintiff.

It is argued before us that certain of the chickens belong to defendant and that a certain part of plaintiff’s testimony should be construed as an admission of this. We have read the testimony and believe that, in view of the fact that the trial judge came to the other conclusion, the judgment should not be interfered with, particularly as defendant herself, apparently, did not take sufficient interest in the case to appear.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be affirmed, at the cost of appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff and defendant are negroes who had been living together as man and wife, though never married. Defendant, the woman, tiring of plaintiff, left him and took by force certain household furniture, wearing apparel and livestock. Plaintiff brings this suit to recover these articles, claiming that they belong to him. Defendant, though represented by counsel, did not appear at the trial. The judge a quo rendered judgment ordering all the articles delivered to plaintiff.

It is argued before us that certain of the chickens belong to defendant and that a certain part of plaintiff’s testimony should be construed as an admission of this. We have read the testimony and believe that, in view of the fact that the trial judge came to the other conclusion, the judgment should not be interfered with, particularly as defendant herself, apparently, did not take sufficient interest in the case to appear.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be affirmed, at the cost of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 729, 10 La. App. 786, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauman-v-hare-lactapp-1929.