The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1865-08-09
Writ Of Habees Co1pna.


ties had arrested John A. Stevenson Of the firm Of
Stevenson & May, New Orleans and 5. P. Grifan, Of
the firm Of S. P. Griffin Co., of this city, and placed
them in close confinement and that We had no ofloial
nornutioa Of the cause, but supposed it was some
thing pertaining G. s. cotton The superstition was
uncaIled for on our part The arrest of these gentle
men ana their subsequent detention, is matter of
interest to this community We have, therefore,
solicited and obtained copy Of the proceedings in
their case in regard TO writ Of haheas corpus As
the petition and return of both gentlemen precisely
alike the result Of course, would be the same
We viii take the case OF John 4. Stevenson, who,
in his petition for writ says be s Illegally deprived
of his liberty and held in custody in the jail OF the
parish Of Caddo By one J. J. ". Starr, who neither
has nor pretends to have any Judicial OF legal order
for 70 OBTAINING him. He alleges that be h's not com
mteed aDv crime offence misdeneanor Of any Kind
whatever that would make him ansWersole TO trial be-
fore any military tribunal, or that would Justify any
military authority in depriVing him OF his liberty. lie
further alleges that Brig Gen. Hawkins, command
ing T. s. forces at this post, has positively refused to
hermit lis counsel to visit him in Jail, confer with
him in any manner whatever. And has also, refused
permission for the judge Of the district court to visit
him, &C. Upon the foregoing, his honor, Judge JAS
l. Weems, issued writ of habeas corpus which We
served upon 1t Starr BY the sheriff Of this parish
But instead of producing the body Of John l. Steven
son in court on the 81 of this month ordered By
the writ, he made the following return:
That the parish Jail of the parish of Caddo is now
used as military prison. that the respondents keeper
thereof duly appointed by virtue OF an order OF hAs
superior officer and military commander. brgader
general James o. catch.
That The within named John A. Stevenson, is
held by said respondent in accordance with orders from
hs superior officer and military commander, breFet
major general John P. Hawkins.
That the production of said John A. Stevenson IN
court would be inconsistent with and in violation OF the
daty respondent keeper Of such military prison;
and that the said John A. Stevenson is now held under
authority of the United States For these reasons and
without intending disrespec to hehonorable Judge
who issued the process the respondent declines 70 pro
duce said John A. Stevenson to subject HIM TO the
process Of the court.
The counsel for the prisoner objected to this return
on the ground that it was not full enough and that the
body Of the prisoner should be brought into court.
His honor the judge, having signifed big willingness
to listen to argument on this point those eminent
ursts, T. G. Hunt, T. T Land and George Williamson,
Esqs proceeded in eloquent and logical manner to
enlghten his honor on the subject Everything in the
shape of precedent bearing upon the was brought
forward Even the decision of chief justice fancy,
read BY the Judge advocate to the court, handled
in such manner to make it appear rs having no
reference to cases of this kind. Every conceivable
point touched upon that the ingenuity Of An hon
orabe lawyer could suggest At the close of the argu
ment his honor informed the counsel that he would
take the matter under consideration until the day
1t the appointed time the court assembled but at the
oe hain
bis honor that he thought the return good one the
case was adjourned over to Monday, at which time
his honor signfed his willingness listen further
argument. n the meantime the prisoners were allowed
more berty-their counsel and business friends having
the privilege of visiting them At this sitting Of the
the court, the plaintiff in affidavit further objected
the return of the writ of habeas corpus by It. Starr
the ground that charges had yet been preferred
against him by the military authorities and
martial had yet been ordered to try him. and that after
the most digent enqniry by himself and his counsel,
he had not been able to learn that any charges can Or
will be preferred against him in any Military State or
Federal courts and therefore, he denies the allegation
Of the return heretofore made by 1t J J; y Starr the
for the production Of the military orders BY which the
said Starr in the said return preends he is directed by
his military superior to deprive him Of his liberty
This and some oherpoints ably argued BY Messrs
Land and williamson At the close his honor informe,
the counsel that be considered the return good one
and that he would give written decision, Of which
the following is a copy:
Erparts-S. p GriFn-Ha5eas Corous.-The
prisoner sought to be brought before me- at cham
ters on a writ Of habeas corpus made actionabe on
the sd inst wherein 1t. John j. W Starr, Of the t.
IA
reasons that the prisoner was elG and detained adc,
authority of tic United States" he declined to pro-
duee the body Of said prisoner before the court
The case was held under advsement till the 18th inst
when the prisoner by his counsel asked leave to file
his raVersng the facts contained in the return
to the writ which not being objected to, was allowed
by the court.
The court is of opinion that the return ''held under
authority Of the United States is good and sufficient
IN law without the production Of the person of prisoner
and that he can proceed no uther in the matter in
controversy. The partys remedy is in court Of the
United States. vide Alderman VS.. Booth, and T. S. vs.
Booth, q Howard, 300 and seq.
It IS therefore ordered adjudged aud decreed that
he habeas corpus in this case issued be dismissed at
lie costs Of the applicant.
Thus done at chambers, this 9TH day Of August, A.
D., 1866
JAMES l. WEEMS,
Judge 10th Judicial District
Nessrs. Land and Williamson appeared for Steven
on, and hessrs Hunt and Land for Griffin. /,
C'oTToN p urinp t1a met