The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-05-29

Below we give an extract from the opinion Of the
Supreme Court. 1t will be seen that the right OF
persons to carry concealed weapons is denied. Ihe
point was, in fact, abandoned in the Supreme Court
We regret the Court did not pass on the question
presented by the motion for new trial, in conse-
quence Of the Jury having read the papers con-
tanning the reports OF the trial
#*#* The counsel for the accused requested
the Court to charge the Jury that to carry
weapons, either concealed openly, is not crime
in the State Of Louisiana; that the constitution
which guarantees to the citizen the right to bear
arms, cannot be restricted by the action Of the
Legislature"
The act Of the 25th March, 1913, makes it a
misdemeanoS for any person to be found with a
concealed weapon such as dirk, dagger, knife, or
any other deadly weapon, concealed in his bosom,
coat, or any other place about him, that does not
appear in full open view.
This law became absolutely necessary to coun-
teract vicious state of society growing out Of the
habit Of carrying concealed weapons, and to pre-
vent bloodshed and assassinatons, committed upon
unsuspecting persons. 1t interfered with no mans
rights to carry arms Ito use its words) Gin full
open vew," which places men upon equality.
This is the right guaranteed by the constitution
of the United States, and which is calculated to
incite men to manly and noble defence of them
Selves if necessary and of their country, without
any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly
assaults.
The counsel for the accused obtained bill Of
exceptions to the charge of the Court, in which
they deny the right Of the Judge to pass in review
the facts and to speak Of the conflicting testimony
when corroborated or eontradicted, and especially
the counsel of the accused requested the Court to
charge the Jury that, When, from the nature Of
the attack, there is reasonable ground to believe
there is design to destroy his life, commit any
felony upon his person, the killing the assaiant
will be Unstable homicide, although it should after
wards appear that no felony was intended. The
Court refused to charge the Jury requested, and
declared that it ioas not laao.
This was the charge given by Chief Justice
Parker in the celebrated trial Of Selfridge. 1t is
strictly the law Of self defence laid down by Rus
sell, McNaIly, and other elementary writers, and
decided in many cases. East, in his pleas of the
Crown, lays down the principle in these words:
GA man may repel force by force in defence Of his
person, habitation, or property, against one who
manfestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
SufpIlSf, 10 COiDItlL KNOWN lelOny, SuCu Us
der, rape robbery, arson, and the like upon either
In these cases he is not obliged to retreat but may
pursue his adversary until he has secured himself
from all danger. If he kill him in so doing, it is
called justifable self defence"
| He qualities the principle substantially as Chie
Justice Parker did, that there must be actual danger
at the time from the violence, and reasonable be-
| lief that felony is intended.
| If there be an actual physical attack of such
nature as to afford reasonable ground to believe
that the design is to destroy life or commit felony
upon the person assaulted, the killing of the as
saant in such case will be justifable homicide il
self defence. We think, therefore, that the charg,
asked in this case, given by Parker in the case
of Selfridge, is the lar of self defence.
| The judgement of the District Court is reversed
and the case remanded, with directions to put til,
| prisoner on his trial for manslaughter alone, h
having been substantially acquitted of murder, an'
with directions to the Court in its charge to tn,
Jury, to conform to the principles contained il
inio