New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-07-13
The Case of Messrs. Joseph Texada an
Archie SmIihs

| The Case of Messrs Joseph Texada and
Archie SmiIhs
This case was argued yesterday before United
| States Commissioner Shannon, in the court room
of the United States District Court. D. E. Haynes,
who, during the war, was in command Of a band
| OF iayhawkers, and in the service of the United
States, in the parish of Rapdes, complains that in
1868 he was assaulted and malreated by Mr., Smith
that in 1865 he was beaten by Captain TeXada, and
that he has IN vain appealed to the judicial authori
ties Of the parish Of Rapides to be allowed to
prosecute them. Therefore he seeks redress from
the federal courts and claims that he has the right
| to do 30 under the " civil rights bil.h
No examination was had into the merits of the
charges, the commissioner contnng himself to an
investigation Of the fact as to whether the civil
rights bill applies to the case,
For Haynes Mr.. A. P Field appeared, and the
counsel Of defendants were Messrs. Fellows and
Stewart.
The argument of the defense was that the civil
rights bill offered redress only to parties lidgant
not to witnesses The parties in the case, if it was
case, we're the State of Louisiana and Joseph
Texada and Archie Smith. It was assumed that
an assault had been made by Texada and Smith
upon Haynes That was q violation of the SOW
ereigu authority of the State of Louisiana and the
title Of the case would be the State of Louisiana
VS.. Texada and Smith" Haynes was only wit
ness He was neither plaintiff nor defendant-nei
ther prosecutor nor prosecuted, and could ro
appear, under the law, complaining that che
State authorities would not do him justice
Upon the showing of Haynes if any one had VIC
lated the civil rights bill, it was the justice who
had refused to receive his complaint, the grant
| irrr, rybo bod tnrrnd him WaV the district attOr
ney who would not file an information or tht
Judge who declined to enforce the law alleged tt
have been violated The parties at bar had no
denied redress to Haynes, had in no manner o
form violated the civil rights bill. Again. the ac
was passed on the 9th of April 1866 and ther
was not a scintilla of proof that the defendants o
anybody else had since the 9th April, 1866, con
travened the law. This was the argument in re
gard to general jurisdiction. 1t was further argue
that if the case was cognizahle by the fedora
tribunals, it could not be held here, for, by tn
laws of the United States, the State of Louisian
was divided into an eastern and northern judi
cial district, and party accused could only b.
held by the court in his district and tried by
jury of the vicinage. Counsel for Haynes wa
defied to show any violation whatever OF the civ
rights bill
|
the civil rights bill had not the restricted al
plcation counsel for defendants Gontended
had. He sought to demonstrate that an assau
}. upon person. which the local tribunals refuse
to take cognizance of, gave the party assailed tt
V right to seek redress from the federal tribuna
under the civil rights bill. The rights of persc
and the rights of property were the righ
to be protected by law In this case IL
| l,,J nIaI TLo 10
of the United States had not beensviolate
literally speaking, but the law of the State Wi
not enforced and the United States came in
compel its enforcement. 1t was true, the State
Louisiana was by a fiction of law the party a
grieved, and Haynes was only witness, but tt
party really aggrieved was Haynes and he pr
perly invoked the paramount law. Besides, IL
State of Louisiana had abandoned the case. /
the laws of this State, misdemeanors OF the XII
g, sought to be punished could not be prosecut
after the lapse of six months That time
elapsed. The State, therefore, could not now
pear. The United States came in, and WITH
State law would try the accused party for VIC
tion of that law.
MIR. Stewart remarked that the argument
been conducted in a somewhat conversation
style (Which it had-we have merely given an 0
lme) ana althOugh not permitted by Ine regu
rules of pleading to say anything more, he wo
ls take the liberty of suggesting to the court that
federal tribunals trying man under the laws
the State of Louisiana, for an offense against tn
laws, would certainly be trespassing in seeking
punish party who, by the very law invo
against him, was already acquitted by presc
ton.
The commissioner said he would not attemp
determine these intricate law points. He We
leave that determination to the court above.
Mt, therefore sent the case before the United ST
district court, fixing the bail of Mr.. Smith at s
and that of Capt. Texada at $1,000.
The witness WIsen in the DelsIer Cas-
. In our report of the case of Charles Deisler, /
lished yesterday, the following testimony and st
ment appeared:
John P. Wilson, 7ndatto, s,Dorn-ls nj
paner dealer. Knows paper called the JOB
budget Witness has sold it. He also sells
, minal Life in Boston. Has sold them before
since the war. ~. =.
Gross eranlined-Keeps at l42 Rampant ST.
Sold the papers before the court two weeks
Got supply from St. Louis, Missouri. kece
it from Rufus II. Underwood, the puohsher'
dozen copies Of it two weeks ago. Ais'J ; 8
before the rebellion broke out
RK. Examined By the RecordeT-DenF. kno1