The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-08-12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoUET-JUDGE
john G. UNDERWOOD PKEsIDING-SATuR-
DAY, AUGUST 10, 1S67-IND1CTMENTs
AGAINST WILLIAM JAMES, COLLECTOR
PosTPoNEMEST TO MONDAY.-1n this court
to-day the cases of United States rs. Will
liam James, collector, was called. These
are cases founded upon two indictments
from the grand jury and forwarded to the
court. The first count in the first indict-
menL charges that William James, collec-
tor Of internal revenue in the city Of Rich
mond, county of Henrico, and State of
Virginia, did, on the lst day Of January,
1867, unlawfully and corruptly receive a
fee, consideration, or reward for tho per-
formance Of his duties as such collector !;
such fee, consideration, or reward not
being such as is required by the law for
the performance OF such services, but
being much larger than he is authorized
by law to receive.
The second count charges that the said
William James, collector of internal rcvc-
nue., did on the lst day Of January, 1867,
receive from certain person or persons, to
the jurors unknown, the sum OF s., 600; such
sum being much larger than he IS antho-
riZed by law to receive.
The second indictment is in the same
words only that the Goth March is substi-
tutcd for the lst January, and the amount
received is 81 900, instead Of 1000.
The act Of Congress under which these
indictments were found specifies that if
any collector, &c., shall demand or accept,
or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly,
&C., any sum Of money or other property
Of value for the compromise, adjustment,
or settlement of any charge or complaint
for any violation or alleged violation Of any
law, except as expressly authorized by
law so to do, be shall be held guilty of 4
misdemcanor, and shall for every such
offence be liable to indictment and trial in
any court of the United States having
competent jurisdiction; and on conviction
thereof, shall be fined in double the sum or
value of the money or property so received
or demanded, and be imprisoned for
period of not less than one nor more than
ten years." On the calling Of the case,
counsel for the defendant moved q con-
solidation of the indictments. The rea-
sons for this motion were that the different
counts in the two indictments were for the
same offence; and by thus consolidating
them the accused would not be subjected
to double trial for the same class of
offence. After an elaborate argument by
the counsel on either side, the court said
that unless the District Attorney could
give good and sufficient reason why they
should not be consolidated he should so
order it to be done. The District Attorney
replied that he was ready in the first case,
but not in the second that supposiDg the
trial would 60 on in tho first case he had
prepared himself for that, but had not
done so in the second; and now, if they
were consolidated, he should have to ask
the court to give him time for preparation; ;
that he could not now name day when
the Government would be ready. The
court then gave the accused the election
of proceeding with the trial on the first
Indictment, or of consolidation and post
popement. The counsel for the defendant,
without hesitation, accepted the latter,
when the District Attorney gave notice
that he would probably be ready for the
trial on Monday.