State v. Delerno
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the District Court of the parish of Ouachita, Biehardson, J.
1Opinion of the CourtSpofford, J.
It becomes immaterial to notice the constitutional question raised in this case, for it is conceded by the District Attorney that the indictment must rest either upon the 1st section of the Act of March 18th, 1852, p. 225, or upon the 23d section of the Act of March 15th, 1855, p. 380. It matters not *649which be considered in foree — for, by both Statutes, it is of the essence of the offence that the selling to the slave should be “ without the consent, in writing, of the owner, overseer or employer of such slave.” These words are in the body of both Statutes, and not introduced by way of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. ThibodeauxSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1915
- State v. RoseSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1910
- State v. QuinnSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1948