Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-05-06
CASES OF JOHN CHARLES GARDINER.
In The Criminal Court Of the District Of Columbia.
MONDAY, MAY /. 1854.

MONDAY, MAY |, 1904.
At the opening of the Court this morning the District
Attorney stated that this the day fixed for the trial
of the case of the United States against JOHN CHARLES
GARDINER being the indictment for perjury, and stand
ing No. IL on the docket The witnesses for the United
States called. Some answered, and the District
Attorney stated that the others expected Messrs
BRADLEY and CARLISLE being engaged in the Circuit
Court did not into Court till about q O'clock when
the District Attorney again brought up the case.
Mr. BRADLEY stated that the counsel for the defendant
taken by surprise finding that the United States
expected to try the indictment for perjury to-day They
had been under the impression that this day was fixed
for the Of false swearing in which they had
given notice that they should file demurrer and which
stands before this They willing to take up the
demurrer and when the for false swearing should
be disposed of the other could be taken up
The COURT remarked that it recoected that when the
of John Charles Gardiner were last brought to its
notice Mr. FENDALL stated that he proposed try the in
dctment for perjury first This day was fixed for that
The delay till this day against the protesta-
on at least earnest objection, of the counsel for the
United States
Mr. CARLISLE said his impression had been, like that
of his colleague, that this day fixed for the other
He certainly could not try the perjury case TODAY
being engaged in the Circuit Court and Mr. BRADLEY
had got leave of absence from that Court in order to
tend the Supreme Court
Mr. FENDALL expressed his surprise that the counsel
for the defendant should be under any msapprehenson
the particular fixed for to-day When the SUBJ
ect last before the Court he distinctly the
purpose of the prosecution to try the perjury first
and some reasons for doing He stated that
occasion that the field of evidence be travelled over in
the perjury would probably be less extensive than that
in the false swearing cases. that though of the
signments in the perjury case would be maintained by
portion of the evidence that which would be Of
fered in the other case yet the whole the trial of the
perjury would be shorter; that in the of
conviction, the Government might perhaps deem it
necessary press the other indictments and that there
therefore manifest convenience in trying the per-
jury case first
As the demurrer the indictment for false swearing
the counsel for the United States had the occasion
ferred to- expressed their willingness discuss on any
day that might be named by the opposite counsel; but
none had been suggested. The Court would find on the
docket for June serm 1862, entry to the effect that
demurrer to that indictment had been filed and overruled
the day which the demurrer in the case of
George A. Gardiner was overrued. Thsre had probably
been agreement afterwards forgotten that the dec
sion of the Court hs demurrer which had been argued
should apply the under the staute
If however, it was overlooked on all sides, when the de-
endants counsel weeks ago. stated that they should
demur to the indictment against John Charles Gardiner
the grounds those assigned for the demurrer
to the indictment against George A. Gardiner and the
additional ground that the oath taken before notary
public.
Neither the Court nor the defendants counsel had any
recollection that there had been demurrer in the case
The DrsTRor ATTORNEY said he willing that the in
dicmen in the false swearing should be open to
demurrer and to take it up when the perjury ws dig
posed Of But the perjury fxsd for this day.
The United States had detained some witnesses and
brought others at great and inconvenience and
he must insist the being disposed Of in way
The counsel for the defendant had apprsed him that they
thought they had the right to try him in his absence
This the District Attorney said the question to be
first settled by the Court. He proposed calling the de-
fendant in both the The Court would then know
whether he is here or not.
Messrs. BRApEEY and CARkIsLE objected to- this
Some discussion ensued, in the course Of which the
DISTRICT ATTORNEY stated that had reached him.
from several quarters that the defendant had gone away
and would not stand hs trial and Mr. CARhIsBs the
other hand stated has he and his colleague bad been
informed by friends Of the defendant that he odd mean
appear and stand bis sral Mr.. c. supposed shat the
why he hcse day that he keew his
could not be tried IN OF the engagements
Of his counsel elsewhere
The Court decided that n any In which, If there
conviction the sentence by law would be nnpri-
sonmen the Court would require the defendant to be
present, and would not ever allow motion relatng TO
Il to be argued in his ABSENCE Such too had been the
practice Of the Circuit Court The United States have
right to call the defendant whose duty it to be here
and he does not answer 70 rfet his recognzance.
ne should appear at any time dnng the term the Court
have the power BY law to strike out che forfeiture
John Charles Gardiner was then called, and did not
answer. The usual procamaton made, and his re-
cognizances in beth cases were fostsitsd.