The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-08-13
LOCAL MATTERS.

LOCAL MAIIERS.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURT-JUDGE
UNDERWOOD PREslD1NG-THE CASE OF
WILLIAM JAMES, CoLLEcToR.-Thec CONT
tinued case of William James was called
in this court yesterday morning.
The counsel for the defendant entered O
motion to quash the first count Of each in
dictment.
John NJ. Gregory, Esq, and General
Wells argued at some length in favor of
the motion, entering as the chief argument
that an Indictment could not be legally
drawn up without the name Of the person
who was represented as having paid to the
accused sums Of money charged to have
been illegally received by him. In the
turtherance of his argument he quoted
ample authorities, and placed the charge
parallel to that Of murder without VIC
tim, burglary without house, etc.
The Judge was Of the opinion that the
first count of the indictments should not
be considered as sufficiently definite. In
the first place, the party mentioned as
having given the bribe or compensation
was neither named or described. In tho
second place, the compensation mentioned
did not appear as sufficiently explicit to
warrant an indictment for malfeasance in
office. 1t was not definitely stated. 1t
might be large or it might be small. 1t
might be construed very differently from
its real intent. The mere charge Of hav-
ing stolen something, without specification,
had been ruled as equivalent to no charge.
He would therefore grant the motion of
the counsel. The court was ready to 60
into the trial The following are the points
in the indictments:
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 q
| fee, consideration, or reward for the 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 reve-
nue., did on the lst day of January, 1867,
receive from certain person or persons, to
the jurors unknown, the sum of 81, 900; such
sum being much larger than he is autho-
riZed by law to receive.
The second Indictment is in the same
words only that the 3Oth March is substi-
tuted for the lst January, and the amount
received is 81 900, instead Of $4,000.
In the second indictment a nolle proSeQui
was entered by the United States At
torney.
The Indictment to be tried was then read
to the accused, who plead not guilty.
A jury of four whites and eight colored
was then empaunelled.
The District Attorney then explained to
the jury the Importance of the case and
of the necessity of each juror being un-
biased. He wished any one who had
heard anything calculated to preju-
dice him either one way or the other to
withdraw.
General Wells, for the defendant, thank
ed the District Attorney for his fairness,
and reiterated his request. He had heard
that application had been made by parties
for the position Of Mr.. James in case he
should be removed. He would ask that
any Juror who had heard of any such ap-
plication would withdraw.
The following persons were drawn
as jurors
DR.. R. A. Frayser, white; Charles L.
Fitchett, white; Albert R. Brooks, colored ;
Edmund Fox, colored; Landrum Boyd,
colored; James Morrissey, white; DR..
Walter Snead, John Freeman, Lewis Lind
sey, Lewis Garter, Frederick Smith, John
B. Miller, James Turner, William NJ. Bag
nall, Thomas Lucas, and William K. Tall.
r. A. Frayser, Albert Brooks, Frederick
Smith, and William r. Tall withdrew.
James Morrissey was challenged by the
defence, but was decided not legally dis
qualified on account Of previously -ex-
pressed opinions.
Mr.. Weed, Junior counsel for the prose-
cution, addressed the jury briefly, stating
what the prosecution expected to prove.
He recounted the charges against the &C
cused, and said they were prepared to
show that subordinate officer had handed
Colonel James 81 900, sent by certain par
ties; that Colonel James was asked wnat
the money was for; that the officer repled
that he supposed it was present that
Colonel James replied that he would not
receive it until he had seen the parties
sending it. He afterwards took the money,
saving that it was sent for separators.
The prosecution did not intend to prove
the intention. That was for the jury to
decide upon hearing the evidence: On
behalf of the Government they had drawn
certain conclusions. The first, that James
knew that the sum he received was greater
than that allowed by law, and IN the Sc
cond place that the money was not taken
without an object. The parties VINO sent
it had an object. They were engaged
here in the distillery business. A seizure
of .whiskey was liable, and it was TO tnelr
interest to close his eyes as mucn as pos
sible. They would prove that James TO-
ceived money not authorized 0y law.
Judge Gregory, for the Defence &C
knowledged the frankness and fairness
with which the prosecution had thus laE
proceeded. His young friend, Mr.. Weed,
had stated openly and with the treest can
dor what he expected to prove. The state
ment of Mr.. Weed was repeated, and Mr.
Gregory asked that the jury would try the
case according to the law Of the land and
the evidence presented.
Acknowledging the statement of the
prosecution to be true in its fullest extent,
snnnose that everything were proven as
stated. could they prove that the separa.
tors alluded to were not used, and that
tba money sent was not the lawful com,
nansat;on for the right of using them? In
| pprdsr p to snstain the charge the United
States must prove that the lee was re- &c,
ceiyed as compensation anu reward w
the discharge Of bis duty as eoi'eeso''