Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-09-24
HE CASE OF SURRATT.
A New Move by the Defence.
The Statute Of Limitation.
Discharge Of the Prisoner.


Riddle, and Wilson appeared.
Mr.. Merrick stated that he had prepared a
plea to be substituted for the special plec.
Judge Wylie remarked that there was no
such thing as pleading double in criminal
cases, but in view OF the circumstance the
Court would permit the defence to withdraw
the special plea. If the defence intended IN
stand upon the special plea, the demurrer to
low. "
Mr.. Merrick asked leave to withdraw the
special plea and file substitute: which was
allowed by the Court.
Mr.. Merriok submitted TO the court that tho
Increment charges an offence committed ON
me DIN OF March, 1865, and a demurrer ha wing
been made and sustained, it was well settled
py authorities (which he Quotcd) that the in
ulctment Is barred by the statute of limitations
ana the court must quash 1t; as in mIsoemean.
ors, the limitation is two years. When a trial
oy Jury mrs taken place, and a verdict been
rendered, the case is not the same. Then the
statute must be taken advantage of by motion
In arrest OF judgment. Ii the prosecution had
alleged that the defendant fled from Justice
AFTER the commission Of the offence, then the
defendant could not take advantage of the de-
mnrrer under the limitation statutes
Judge Wyhe said the point was a very I'm.
portaEt one, and he would like TO hear the other
side.
Mr. CarrIngton said the prosecution had not
anticipated this point. but they thought thew
could meet is. The defendant had filed a special
Plea 10 winch the demurrer had bcen sustain.
ed Could he avail himself of the statutes of
limitation, when by his special plea he admit
TED his guilt-that he had committed the Of
fence charged within the time which make5
MN amenable to the law! II sustaining a
demurrer is tantamount to fading the tact nv
me Jury, IT certainly is an admission that the
offence was committed within the time
MIR. Wilson followed, saying that the Court
could not take cognizance OF a mere suggestion.
Mr.. Merrick had made no motion, and was too
sagaclous 10 make such motion, because it
dafa nf
came too late be argued that the defect alluded
10 was not one OF those which could be brought
10 the nonce OF the Court when it was ready to
pass Judgment; it could not 60 back to consider
an error appearing on the records and he
referred TO Ill Cranch.
Judge Wyhe remarked that it was unfor:u
Cranch's work differently. He read from I'D
Craneh ii2, United States against Watkins the
mead notes OF which said where Judgment is
TO be rendered, ON demurrer to plea to an in.
dictment, the whole record Is to be con sidered
and If II should appear that the offence has
been committed beyond Limitation Judgment
must be rendered for the defendant TIE de.
PENDANT has right upon dem urer to avail him
self OF the Statute of Limitations.
MI. Riddle ed, saying that the indict-
ment was framed according to the precedents
The defendant in this case puts himself in no.
sltlon by pleading the general issue under
which the statute of limitations could have
been pleaded Subseq uently he abaudons the
general issue and puts in a special plea. That
IL was now said that the demurrer opened the
merits OF the case. He quoted Gonld's Plead
III fo', 10 snow that special demurrer does
not open the merits of the case
Judge W ylie said that the indictment CHARGED
offences committed on the 9th of March, I-65
nd between that date and April 18th following
ne d. fe ndant was required to plead and did
so generally in June last, That plea remained
until few days ago when he asked leave to
plea specially the Presidents amnesty proc-
Ianatlon. The Cont gave the leava, and the
next morning he filed his plea, setting forth
that proclamation. The Government demur-
red to this plea and the demurrer is general
one for defective substance in the plea. For
two days the Court had heard the arguments,
and yesterday the Court Intimated that the
demurrer would be sustained; but this
judgement had not been announced
This morning the counsel for the 10
fence Intlmated that there was still another
ground IN suppert oftheirplea, and tn II ground
was that the offences charged We're committed
more than two years ago. The act of ApriI
Both, l79p, provides that no person or persons
shall De tried for capital offences uniess rha
grand jury shall find Indictment within three
years; otDer offences within two years pro-
yIded that nothing snail extend TO persons
neelng from justice. The language is clear
and strong and cannot De mis- unders tood. The
INDICTMENT was found more than two years ar.
ter the offence was committed and there is no
ayerment that he was fleeing from justice.
That is fatal TO this case unless il be shown that
il was necessary by rule Of law for the def.n.
dant to plead the benefit of the statute by spe.
clsl plea which is claimed by the Government
be authorities OF this District are contradic.
tory on ms subject. In Cranch there seemed to
De different decision on the same case, and in
I'd Crancn II Is held that a misdemeanor shall
be prosecuted within two years. In Pennsyl-
yania II was held that il WIS necessary TO raise
the question by plea OF abatement, but thai was
subsequently, overruled. 1t is not necessary
that this question should be raised by plea Of
abatement, but he may take advantage of il by
demurrer or any other form. Possibly il might
q q QPt n Un tn trfa
would be too late IL would be for the reason
that the question Of flight from justice may be
raised, and 1t would be presumed In case that
a verdict was found against HIM that II was
because of this question.
1t had been objected to that it was too late TO
raise this question and the issue was this plea
amnesty proclamation included the defendant
Is this SO If SO, ii is too late. tits a princl.
pie OF pleading that the court decides on the
whole record, and can go back to all the pre-
yIous stages and decide according to the first
record. He read from Stephens on Pleading
the law on this subject. He felt siren theped
IN this view by written decision Of Mr.. Holt,
War Department. Recently charges Were
made against the Chief Of Ordnance, that OFF,
Ger demanded a court Of inquiry: the question
was referred to Mr.. Holt and be gave the ipin-
ION that the court ought not 10 be ordered be-
canse the transaction took place more than two
years previously, notwiths landing the officer
desired TO waive the limitations He felt there.
d..
TO say that judgment must be given for toe de-
PENDANT, and that ends the whole question.
Mr.. Merrick asked that the judgment be now
entered.
MI. Darlington asked that the case be certl.
fled to the court in bane. A new indictment
can be found at the next term.
The court said that il was not in the habit of
certifying questions fully argued before nun
the court in b3nc.
Mr.. CarrIngton said that he would frame An
indictment consonant with the views of the
court, and wonld make application to the
court that be might be held.
Judge Wylie said that the court had made ITS
decision, but that he had no power to prevent
his rearrest.
Mr.. Darlington minated that he would
do so.
The Judgment of the Court having been
there were no demon STATIONS save perceptIble
connection in the crowd during the delivery
of the latter portion OF the opinion Of sne
Court,
Surratt Immediately left the Court House
and the crowd soon dispersed, the Court being
ad journ ned To the term in course.
HEARTLEss INDIFFEREECE.-Last TUESDAY,
morning, a man named Leopold T. Levy was
arraigned before Justice Clark and fined IS
(the extent OF the law) for offering for sale at
Wallis Bazaar, horse badly diseased with the
CHAMBERS. In addition thereto he was ordered
10 Kill the animal, 50 as to prevent the spread
of the disease. This he promised to do; but to
the justices surprise, he found the same animal
up Tor sale this morning at the Bazaar by a
man named Richard Phillips. who stated that
he had bought it IN Alexandra of Levy, he
having gone direcG from this CITY and sold