The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-03-19

been the rlRntIul pOSSeSSOTS OF The
, property. They claim to be paid before
, the property shall be sold. In fact they
aver and contend that the Supreme
} Court Of the United States erred and
) did them injustice In taking this prop
erty out of their hands before they were
reimbursed and refunded their outlay.
} The plaintiffs In the case jackson
, and others Of Georgia. denied the legal
! ity and equity of any such monstrous
, demand. They denied that the proper
, ty was answerable for one dollar to
Ludeling, Ray and associates. They
coutended that their mortgages covered
} the whole property, with all improve
ments thereon, no matter by whom
made, and that their mortgage was su-
perior i'm rank because prior in date to
all other privileges, liens or claims. The
! plaintiffs averred and contended that
this mortgage had been set up, re-
instated and re-established as q valid
and eubsisting mortgage by the decree
Of the Supreme Court of the United
States and that the said court had or
dered the property to be sold for their
account, and il anything was left over
then it was to go to the ordinary, I'M
secured creditors OF the " S. and L. r.
II. Co. The plaintiff further contended
that the decree of the Supreme Court
adjudged the defendants to be fraudu-
lent possessors OF the property, and
without any rights except those to which
the law of Lo uisiana might entitIe
them The plaintiff further commended
that the law of Louisiana accords to the
fraudulent possessor no rights whatever
that fraudulent possession carries
with or after it responsibilities and pen
alties, but no rights. They challenged
the defendants to cite any law or deci-
sion of court in support Of their auda-
cious demand, and thus tho issue was
joined in this case.
For the plaintiffs appeared as counsel.
Hons. John A. Campbell and Henry M.
Spofford For the defendants John
Ray and William H. Hunt. The de-
bate, as we have said, occupied about
Ave hours. The report OF it we shall
probably publish on Wednesday next,
in full In the meantime we can only
publish a mea gre description of the
dramatic scene enacted on the occasion
Judge Campbell opened the argument
and spoke, probably, for an hour. Our
readers are familiar with the style of
this great lawyer, and know that his
utterances are calm, measured, digni-
fled and eminently judicial-that he
speaks more like q grave and learned
doctor Of the law expounding its mean
ing than an advocate enlisted for the
promotion Of any particular cause. He
discussed that branch Of the case to
which the provisions Of the civil code
touching the rights Of possess ors in bad
faith were applicable.
He analysed the decisions of the Su-
which such rights had been the subject
Of investigation and aimed to show that
there was no law and no decision in ex-
istence which gave the slightest sane
ton to a claim made by fraudulent |
possessor, either for fruits or revenues. |
or the value Of repairs and improve
ments he might have made. He drew |
the distinction between possessor |
technically in bad faith, or possessor
whose tenure was fraudulent from the |
beginning, and contended that the
claim set up by Ludeling, Ray and COM
pany was entirely inconsistent and in
with the decree Of the SUI
preme Court.
Having concluded his argument, Mr.
VIM. Hunt rose and addressing the court
said, substantially, that, as the case
was of great importance, he would pre-
fer to waive further oral argument and
would ask for time to prepare printed
brief. 1t was apparent, from this move,
that Judge Campbell's argument and
had dumbfounded Mr.. Hunt
and that he was unprepared to answer
them. Judge Woods, however, declined
his request so far as to stop the trial
and required him to go on. Mr.. John
Ray then opened for the defense, and
Tor about an hour he struggled with the
law, which he either does not under
stand or was resolved to pervert. It
vas melancholy exhibition to SEQ
nan OF his ability foundering about as
I in morass, and attempting to recon-
,ile righteous law with an impossible
,heory Of the case he was defending. In
defiance Of the decree Of the Supreme
court, which, in excoriating language,
lad condemned him and his co-pur-
'hasers as fraudulent alb initio, he con
ended that they had been in good faith
rom the beginning. and were entitled
0 be reimbursed their entire expendi-
ures, as we'll those incurred for re-
'airs and improvements as those in
Incurred for operating the railroad.
Mr.. Hunt followed Mr. Ray on the
anne side in rambling and dis
ointed effort, which came very far short
Il what might have been expected from
lawyer of his reputation at this Bar |
nd from one Of his pretensons as an $
putty pleader. He did not even make i
he best of his very bad case.
We have left ourselves little room to {
peak OF Judge Spofford's closing argu- A
lent on this occasion, He had been left I
y his distinguished colleague to bring C
p the reserves and rout the enemy, but I