Year: 1870

In the matter of the arrest of c. A. Weed,
on the affidavit of J. Stafford, charging him
with conspiring to deprive certain butchers
of their civil rights, by the prosecution OF
his claims as stockholder in the Crescent
City Live Stock Landing and Slaughterhouse
Company, Judge Durell, Of the United
States Circuit Court, yesterday rendered his
decision, discharging Mr.. Weed from Gus
tody.


The leading points Of the decision are as
follows:


After reviewing the origin of the case. and
alluding to the decision of MIR. Justice Brad.
lev. of The United States Supreme Court,
quoting from the civil rights bill and the
fourteenth amendment to the constitution
of the United States, he stated in substance
that it might well be said that if any act
that Mr.. Weed may have done in connection
with the action of the Attorney General be.
fore the Fifth District Court and the Eighth
District Court, in the case OF Louisiana ex
rel s. Belden, Attorney General, VS.. William
Pagan, subjects him to charge of having
infringed any provision of the civil rights
bill, so called, or of the fourteenth amend
ment or Of the act entitled an act to enforce
the rights of citizens to vote in the several
States of the Union, and for other pur-
poses, then any two or more persons
can not possibly bring suit in court OF
law for the enforcement OF anv supposed
rights or privileges or claims for property,
without running the risk of being subjected
to such charge, arrested and tried before
a court of the United States. He supposed
that every person under the laws of the
United States and the constitution of the
United States, under the civil rights Dill,
the act of May 81, 1870, the fourteenth
amendment, and the constitution and laws
of Louisiana, has an enduring right to re-
sort to the courts either Of the State or the
United States, for the assertion of any rights
of property, or privilege, he may suppose
himself to be possessed of, or to which he
might have claim, and that such law and
such authorityscan not subject him to a
criminal prosecution.


He then stated that when two or more per.
sons resort to a court of law for the asser-
ton of their supposed rights Of property or
privilege, there is no combination. The re-
latcr's connection with the action OF the
Attorney General in the case of the State OF
Louisiana ex REL, VIM. Belden vs. WIN. Fa-
gan and others. in the Eighth District Court,
did not make him conspirator against the
rights of the prosecution.


He further went on to say that the Opln-
ion he was now rendering did not in any
way run counter to that of Mr.. Justice
Bradley. in the case of the Live Steck Deal
ers' and Butchers Association VS.. Crescent
City Slaughterhouse Company, in which he
concurred.


In conclusion, he said that whatever may
have been or may be now the connection of
MIR, Weed with this case-that is, the case
in the Eighth District Court. the ca e
carried to the Supreme Court of Lou
isiana, the case commenced in the
Fifth District Court of the city of New
whatever may have been his
connection in these cases, he could
not be held as a conspirater against any
right of the prosecutor; that all he bad
sought to do was to enforce his supposed
right OF property under the law as admins
tered in our courts. Therefore, he con-
cluded, let the relator be dismissed.