The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-01-31
THE ALLEGED CUSTOM HOUSE FRAUDS
United states Circuit Court.


Before Judge shpman.
JAN S0-The case OF tho United States versus Mcsss
Fabian Chaunccy and Barney, charged with committing
certain forgeres In Custom House returns with intent to
defraud tho United States government was resumed
yesterday before Judge Shpman Considerable interest
IL exhibited In the proceedngs and tho room was
thronged with witnesses and the professional men
engaged on either SIDE e2 sT Nh
+ a ERROR IN THE MprcrxHNr.
Mr. Courtney Assistant United States District Attorney
fact that clerical but slight and mmatcria error ap-
peared therein This was as TO the date Of tho passing OF
thought counsel for the defence would mot en- i. noccs
sary under tho circumstances, TO plead dc
Mr. Edwin James one Of counsel for the defence,
error SO that counsel might know how TO plead uder
the change. ....,, .----.. -. -.
was mere change Of date Il is mere alteration from
the 10Th of October, 1865, to March 3, 1925.
Mr. Benedict one Of the counsel FOR tho defrnccThis
Is an important alteration, and one which may entirely
alter the controversy 1t must at all events affect the
nature of tho pleading.
Mr.. Courlney-In what respect
Mr. James-ln this, This Indictment was framed
few days ago, and your Honor will member that the
first count of the indctmentthe main and only one on
which the prosecution reied-proceeded on the ground
Of the effects OF the statute at the tine OF
tho execution Of tho bond-thas is, upoa tho
the statute of the 10th October 1885, Now the strict
Attorney that this mistake is not material In
any way TO tho for the Defence which in all de
ence 70 MN we mold u Is NOW, IN ORDER 70 MAKE the
States they must proceed in accordance with the law
. eau az. q. o uae ~ u a ~ .h is,,
hasad "a io 0on'p"n'' anu 'po" "o' '"0
Judge shpman-The point is whether this alteration
IN e a. all ,a tne gentlemen Tor
operation of counsel nterfereS with tho limo OF de-
Inv. .e VI 'siy al uo"n W .'o,, anu .iey Sonsui
consider that they will be entitled TO IT. That
Is the poinwhethcr you tefcnce) are in different posi-
tfnt xx.,ft thaa tn
t; wiz, w S e1 & I nU ~ r ~ pI ~,
sSc OF thc proceedings Lnat IL tne question 70 consaer
n, ,n souso-"o "eio "''u' " no'o '"
q" 9sao inc e,i indicimen MT, ,,ox No. . ,,,o
Judge shipmah-The prosecution men, nave an1'c
Pa Is so,. -, $1,000, ~ A.. y,,. :. .....s E., ,..
pose to move nale praseguq We have not pleaded to
Jadco Sb on,an Thei T. nartec',v nroner
JuaEe on p,nan-lnsa l1 peiiec.iy p'oper.
COPY o. tne new inuc'h n. we VIII lhen s'a'e "na'
course n we we may CHOOSE 70 ADOPT
alteration in few seconds It. was per ect nonsense to
ask LOT TURNER Time uhueT Dr., the circumstances
perfect nonsense.
Judge shipnan sao that counsel shonu get copy OF
INC n nS ia",son nj ve wan,
The District AttorneyThey nave examined u already,
and do not propose to furnsh them with copies of in
dictment
Judge Shipman-You shall have the Indictment TO ex-
anime, and then you will be able to say what change
will be mo- cssary to make in your pleading Defendants
counscl have right to aminethe indictment before
they plead That $ the hrst step IN case Inc ques-
ton, then Is, are you ready 10 peadl
Defendants counsel-No, sir F; we may have rights
suggested by TINS change that we had not oeior Inc
proposed alteration IS naturally calculated 10 emoars
our ton No matter how small In The eyes OF the DIS
trct Attorney this change appears II may make TINS an
entirely rDprosecuton, a new act on polh as 10 Jaw
and to fact and we want time to consider and what
rights we had under the other Indictment That Is ex'
acty where we stand This Is no trivial matter OF con-
slderation, for In II Is Involved the respsciaoly ana
character OF tneSe QeienuantS, anu thciT tounset
should have time to deliberate rs To the OK
tent this proposed change may bear upon Tue
trial OF their case. One OF tho counsel mad pcn unex
pcctedy caiicu OUT Q, town ,ntruss 70 lne oousc'
present 70 mako moton TINS morning 70 quasn te IN
dictment-a motion which was iaiy consdcrea would
De sum lent 10 ahninate ne case Vi INC pfosecution
This new act Of the District Attorney, however, has
prevented tne Proceeuiny Win That mohou.
plslr g Auorncy-what new acuonf 70 only
cnnngc OF oaie.
Defendants sounselEAn entirely new and different
p.oposor iou nuo u VI ov% a su's y, " ~ ocnv
under another Jaw Counsel never heard Of such a
thing-to deny the right Of defendants 70 ono or
two days TO get ready 70 plead In such as this
The District Attorney treats this matter trivially
it's not mistake In date alone for II he would
be the last to ask for an instants delay They wore
anxious TO try the case upon the law applicable thereto
plexon Of case and then urge on Its trial was an I'M
win nm olence against the limited s,aes laws md
satute dated 10th Of October 1898 and vhen urenared
TO plead to the ind cmcnt they arc suddenly called upon
10 nead 10 an Indictment based upon an act passed so
long ago "a March 1925 Under these crcumstances
a g. ni-a 80 ~ H. ,rd,,aonca ~ thn I,,s ~,
Tho I,s,y A,,ornev said he vo,,d m n S.v woras
ass,na,s he c,od Of more with which coupso, haS az
..s -. VI s s.oSe Avn "oa .oase ~, u a., az
sSpu " vvs.e ,h ~ ,ho,. Uiad,o' H. ,S
pared 10 mako motion 10 quash the Indictment on the
very error e District Attorney ght to cor
mere Glen al error as 70 dAemirom octooe, TO-
reverted to the earlier date and known that Il