The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-11-05
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

The First Case Before tho Court Involving
the Fourteenth AmendmcnI--Ihe New
ORLEANS slaughter Honse MonopoIy-The
State OF Texas W. White, Ci,iIes CT nj.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 4. 1870.
The first or the cases involving the fourteenth
constitutional amendment question came before the
Supreme Court OF the United States to-day upon
motion by Judge Campbell, OF AlaDama--the New
orleans Slaughter House cases-for an Injunction to
restrain the defendant, the State OF Louisiana,
ex rel, and Its Attorney General, from further
interfering with the plaintiffs In their Dusl-
ness IS butchers, &C., In the city OF New
Orleans. IN act OF 1869 OF the Louisiana
Legislature gave monopoly or the siaugnterlng
business within the city limits to the Crescent City
Live Stock Landing and Slaughter House Company,
anu made it unlawful for slaughterlng to be done
anywhere else IN the city than upon their premises
The plaintiffs about twenty in number, prior to
that act were engaged in the business and they are
now compelled to pay the slaughter house corpora
ton for the privilege In Their abattoirs, which they
alege are not as good as their own previously IN
use, but arc now abandoned under the law and
announcement i'll location. The original suits In the
court below were decided in the State Court
against the plaintihs, and iney took out their
writ of error TO This Court wnicn operates
persedeas ana proceeded with their business. Tne
Slaughter House Company thereupon commenced
another suit In me state Court and obtained an IN
junction against The plaintis, whch Is enforced by
the police Of the CITY, from which interference they
now beg to be relieved. Ii is insisted that this court
the action Of the State is violation Of the super
sedeas, arising from the writ OF error, and IS
| In dlsohedience OF it, On the merits it Is
submitted by Judge, Campbell that the privI-
Assembly s COMPLAINED Of ~ are moi ne IN eien he
power Of the Legislature to grant, and that they
yo, Iae acs ae y, ~, te privileges and manl.
! aud denies protection where 1t the duty Of the
Legislature to provide II, and therein It violates the
| ltdr nj
Tor the defendant, contended that the whole power
was in the STATE and that the legislature the judi
having united IN giving the slaughter house COM
pany the exclusive privileges complained Of, the
ieqefa poWols aaa ao concern WIN INC matter;
cities &c 1el-ln this case Mr.. Durant flied motion
for ruc Oh George ". PASCAL requiring him to pay
over to the clerk of this COURT The benefit OF The
| State, certain money recovered by him as counsel
| in the case. the argument OF the motion was set
No. 2l0. Dedfy's Lessee Us. C1tig ct al This case
comes here second time from the Circuit Court OF
the pian Il Is al eeSe for The ty recovery oss q
individual third para OF tract OF land on Kent
Island, chesapeake Bay. On the former hearing
! there were but two qlestons FIRST as TO whether u
| certain ancient deed and Its recitals had been
properly excluded below when offered as evidence
| In view VI facts and conveyances adduccd 20 SHOW
that possession had passed with and been continu-
ously he'd UNDER II; and second, whether q deed
from the mother OF the plaintiff (which the court be-
low mad admitted conveying All her interest In the
matter was sufficiently executed and acknowledged
4 uGdef the statutes oil Maryland In respect TO con-
| veyanceS py femmes convert THIS court then re-
versed tine decision Of the Circuit Court the rrst
point and sustained At on the second. The deed at.
mi.tcd against he, vas fatal TO her case, as
the record Stood but lie cause was remanded
| for new trial on the ground that the plaintih
might POSSIBLY nave been deferred by the rejection
! or the deed, which was enormously excluded RON
setting out her fuIl reply to the deed. which
was properly admitted anu IT was but just that she
should have an opportunity Of putting herself right
ff SUCH were the case. By the rejection OF the
ancient deed the Court said she mad been prevented
from making out even q priAtd IdCie case and,
therefore, had no interest in Offering to show any
thing lsuch for instance as forgery which might
avoid the force OF her mothers conveyance. When
ING case came Up The second time at the
circuit the plaintiff, Instead OF claiming under her
mother ana against the deed which the Court had
remanded the cause TO discredit, asserted title ex.
clsiyely under that deed as an heir at law Of
her cousin, the son Of the party TO whom the deed
was madei and she consequently now relies on the
deed which the court determined to be bar to her
pretesons on the case as then presented, and asks
the court 10 reject the deed on which, as her own
PROOF, she then rested her claim. Her claim Is now
one-ffth Instead OF onethird as before For plaintiff
In error, II. j. Brent; for defendant, s. L. Wallis.
| --------
Mrs. Cayanaugh, wife OF respectable citizen OF
| Toledo, was found Oh the floor OF brothel, insen
hp hQaI nj anIt that pfa nf q