New Orleans Republican., 1875-12-30
u DIBtECE NVuI
SENTENCED,

y. walters, ahas Benson, as sault and bat
terry, one day
VERDICT.
State ys. George c. Norcross and Nathan
Morris.-Without legal right taking posses
| sion OF houses under tax sale and tax col
lector's title. In substance, Judge Abell's
charge was as follows
Gentlemen of the Jury-My desire to hear
this case argued was in eonse quence OF my
opinion of its importance. 1t is SO because
it hinges on and touches the foundations of
society-the very yitals of society. You are
10 give it no other consideration than Under
the law on which ii stands. If you are sat
isfied under the law that both are guilty,
you will say 80; if one innocent, you will
acquit him and convict the other; if both in
nocent. acquit both. l will say first, in this
connection, that in all cases of high crimes
and misdemeanors, treason for example, all
persons charged are guilty as principals or
not at all. If you believe Norcross alone
took possession, you must acquit the other,
if you believe the possession was unlaw-
fully taken. If you believe Morris took
possession without connecting scheme
with him, as merely his agent, you will ao-
quit him 1t is requisite that he should
know and be assisting. You must Judge
from the evidence, and not draw on your
imagination. Ii you believe they were act
ing together 20 seize certain property, the Il
you must convict both. The case has been
ably argued, but you must discrmina te be-
tween argument and fact; not regard preju-
dice or anything extrsneous. The acts OF
third parties have nothing to do with the
case; the issue ls between the State and the
two accused. The guilt or innocence does
not depend on the intent except the will
fulness OF Morris. The innocent agent is
not to be held responsible. charge you
that the title conveying the property to the
VNpo ,fry 10 rrtr acia nd tnIa
court and jury until set aside by a
civil court. As to the title of Nor.
cross, you are to give that all it
claims, and the law allows. If the law is
unconstitutional, it is the business of the
Supreme Court to say SO. 1t is no part of
the duty of this court to decide the ques-
tion. 1t might be 80 on motion in the ma
ture of a demurrer. You must give effect
to the law itself.s 1t is found in the Revised
Statutes, section SIS: Whoever shall take
possession of any tract of land, or any part
thereof, or of any house or other tenement,
being the property of another person, with
out any legal right SO to do land whose pos
session shall not have continued for one
year without disturbance) shall,
on conviction, be fined not less than $50
nor more than $1,000, or imprisoned not less
than ten days nor more than six months, at
the discretion of the court" The matter of
punishment is left with the court, which
may intiict the maximum or minimum. In
my native State it is go, but in some others
the jury may fix the punishment. The first
question is, was Mrs Handlin, the prosecu-
trix, the owner of the prOpertyl The title !
have ruled, is in due form. The court and
jury are bound by it, unless it is attacked in
any manner. If Handlin had purchased
the property at tax. sale, the title might
be questioned in any way after twenty or
thirty years, but not in this proceeding. If
you are satisfied Norcross in any manner
within year has admitted her possession,
he is estopped from denying it now, unless
he show fraud of some kind. Next, are you
satisfied he took possessions You may con-
slider anything at the time Of the institution
of this suit, or before it, but nothing since.
If you are satisfied from the evidence and
nothing else that he did you may consider
the tax collectors title. This conveys no
property, it leaves it with the owner on
more, and may be broken by the payment
of certain amount of money, as the deed
says.
Judge Brau ghn-I desire to offer an ex-
ceptiOn here.
Judge Abell-The court must go on, and
do the duty it has 10 perform. Afterwards
you shall have every opportunity. This
property still remains as it was, and the
title is incipient according to the fifth sec
LlOn OF aCL NO. ~ OF 1910 until Il0 AuultOr
can give title under section six. Does this
give title to anybodyl 1t is conversible
title under certain conditions, but the pos
session remains where it was. Taxes must be
levied and collected, or the State must STOP
This court can't live on wind Section four
SAYS: THAT the tax collectors shall be,
and they are hereby, authorized to give a
title in the name of the State of Louisiana
to all persons purchasing property sold in |
pursuance of this act, and such title shall be |
held in and recognized by all courts of this |
State as valid in lSw, for which title the tax
collector shall be allowed fee OF 81; upon
the presentation Of title so given to the dis 1
triet court or the parish court it shall be the 4
duty of the Judge to order the sheriff to put |
such person in possession OF the property SO |
purchased by him." The law itself shows |
what must be done by the party. He is |
sent to the court, because there is no appeal
from tax collectors title.
Judge Braughn-I ask the court to in |
struct the fury TO find Q verdict Of acqmttal |
in favor Of Morris, as there ia no evidence
against him.
Judge Abell-I can not charge them there
10 no evidepce aGainst him, but that there
10 not enough to convict. ,
Judge Bfaughn then asked the court to
Eige the following charges: 81 ranA
/. Where no malice . shown to have ex-
sted when the OfFbnso u alleged 10 have
,sen sommittsd, no eriminality exists. Re-