Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-30


Watkins" in reference to what he is named in
tho abstract: which is only 1T. Watkins, "--nei- |
Their IS there any addition of his calling or profess
sion. lie wished, therefore, the counsel should |
could be taken OF il by general demurrer. The |
Court inclined to think that advantage could not
be taken OF the objection, upon general demurrer,
as the case now stood; though thoy had not been
able to lind any very clear authorities either way
They therefore suggested the subject to tn, coun.
\ sci, for their inquiry.
Mr.. Key then stated, that a decision by the
Court Of the points made in the argument was
very desirable, whatever might be decided a5ou,
the objection suggested by the Court; that the in
dictment sent TO the Grand jury was extracted
from former one they he'd found, and it was
thought necessary 10 send il 10 them literally CO.
pied from the oae they had found; and that the
Courts decision upon the substantial objections
| that had been argued, would save time ani be i'm.
portant TO all parties.
| The Chief Justice then said that the Court had
had, since the adjournment, no opportunity OF con-
ferring upon the points discussed Il, the argument
till this morning. and had not been able entirely
TO agree upon them-that they wished further
conference, and would take till Tomorrow.
a letter was produced from Mr.. Southland, init
mating that II was probable he would arrive here
to-day.
We understand, also, t,,a, Mr.. Hlnblc,on, Of
Pensacola, is expected this evening. by way OF
| Norfolk
! Since writing the above. we learn from the Bal
4
that city last evening on journey towards Wash
| ington. IIb Iuue %
The opinion Cf majority Of the Court on the
demurrer to the last indictment agains, DR.. Wat
i aims, was delivered to-day by Judge Intrusion,
and will be found in another column. Judgment
was given for the defendant the ground Of there
not being sufficient technical precision in naming
the offence i'll the Indictment, to support conyic-
ZION Tor forgery: the charge was for fraudulently
and falsely altering, emitting the word ''iorged."
Judge Cranch followed, and delivered an opin-
ion dissenting in some particular points from that
of Judge Intrusion and Mursell.
The demurrer, therefore, WAS sustained.
| mr.. Swami addressed some observ atoms TO tie
court, and concluded with motion that the Grand
Jury should be instructed, by the court, that the
facts found by them in the Indictment, amounted
10 forgery, in order 10 direct them in an indictment
about 10 be presented in which the term "lorged"
il added.
Some discussion ensued, in tie course Of which,
Mr. Key asked if the purposes Of public justice
we're 10 be defeated by reason Of the grand jury
iii,istaaing the law, aud supposng that the acts
charged did not amount TO forgery They had
iound one indictment containing certain facts; and
refused 60 find another containing the same facts,
because the offence was called by lis proper tech
meal name of forgery in the latter. IL was there.
tore proper, that the court should tell them that
the facts they had found, amounted 10 forgery,
and tina, they ought 10 give the technical name to
the offence. They had been told by the coun-
sci for the United States that If they doubted as
10 the law, they could consult the court they had
not done so; and az they had found facts, amount
ing TO forgery, they should be told so, and directed
to give the offence that name.
| The discussion terminated by Judge CTanch
desiring the counsel for the prosecution 10 state
m writing the nature ofthe instructions hch they
desired the court to give the grand jury. state
Uent was therefore drawn up, but the court en-
gagged IN other business, and adjourned without
! hearing the motion.
In the course OF the discussion the court having
| stated that they hal made up their opinion upon
/ the other points argued tho demurrer, were
requested by the u. States coinse, 10 deliver H.
IA ii would affect the motion they had made. But
lIc court declined doing so, stating that i, nigh,
be unnecessary to give any opinions on those
points.
We understand that The motion OF the L. s.
counsel viii form the subject Of argument 10
row. The great importance attached 10 il, vii!
necessarily render; matter Of the highest in
| terest 1I5. jane. -.
In tho Circuit Court of the United States for this
District, yesterday, the argument upoa the motion
4, OF Mr.. Key to instruct the Grand Jury was con-
tinued by Mr.. Jones and concluded by Mr.. Coke,
on the part Of the accused. Mr.. Swami has the
foor for TO. day, ana Mr. Key will follow.
/ The discussion of yesterday, we are told, Uor
re were not presently quite animated and ri
qua.,. Nat. Int, Jane FL.
Mr.. Swami, this morning, commenced his re-
ply The part of the United States to the argu-
ments OF the counsel for the prisoner on yester-
| day. He ably ana fully indicated the course !
pursued by his colleague snd himself, as well in
relation to the charge OF cruelty and persecution
towards DIR. Watkins. DIS to that of having endea- |
vored TO s!iSmatize the jury with ignorance end
! corruption, and oil having eatrdPpea and made !
| them instruments Of oppression I
The argument on the motion is progressing, and
the presume il sill be concluded to-day. In Mon
days or Tuesdays paper, we expect 10 give re-
port CT the proceedings as far as they have gone.
! 3. III An adjournment has JUS, taken place. !
| On the conclusion Of Mr.. swann's argument, MIR.
Jones explained in relation 10 his remarks oil yes |
teriay, on the subject Of the vindicve course al /
! legged to have been pursued in the prosecution; J
! fully exhonera,ing the cOuCse for the U. States
from any intention 10 Cypress the defendant. Mr. |
Key followed, and in an animated and energetic |
Speech observed. that so far from The counsel for
| the prosecution having used any undue means, in |
the course OF the proce edings before Nc court,
such o course might more properly he ascribed 10 J
the opposite counsel, one OF them having, ia COM
pany with the son Of Doctor Watkins attended be-
lore tie grand jury, TO prefer charge, which
con'd Only bear tie construction OF en,ieavorinc
TO remove The imputa:on from the accused, by
eliminating another person, entirely unconnecied !
with the acts charged against the defendant.
Mr.. Coke shortly replied, aud stated that he
was the person alluded TO by Mr. Key. lie had
certainly attended the grand jury with the Of
Dr. Watkins; but on matter entirely foreign 10
the merits oil that PERSONS He had done so
too, with the knowledge, and by the advise OF the
District Attorney. (lagrant offence he stated
had been committed, reqsiring, as lac thought, the
interference OF the grand jury.
MIR. Swami said that Mr. Coke nusl have mis-.
understood his remarks. lie had been applied 10
by MIR. Coke OH the subject Of a certain affidavit
OF one o! the witnesses, examined before the grand
Juryi aud had said in answer, that it he (Mr ca
chose, he could, like any other person. 20 before
the grant jury 10 the case he mentioned.
MIR. Key briefly rejoined after which,
The Court adjourned. U. S. Te'. yanr %.
FROM OUR CORRESPONDENTS
WAsHINGToH, June ~, 1929. |