The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-01-11

Total. .l2oAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT-HoN. GEO.
s. BRYAN PREsDMa.-TRIL FOB THE VIOLA
IIoN OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE IN NOT AZ
FIXING THE REQUISITE STAMPs.-The first OF
the cases OF this character in which the grand
jury recently found true bills came up for trial
yesterday. Considerable interest has been
felt by the community in these proceedings,
and the result Of the different trials will be
read with interest. The case tried yesterday
was that Of the United States us. E. Strauss
and Isaac Mann, Asher d. Cohen, Esq, ap-
| pearing for the defendants. The Indictment
was made out on charges preferred by two
United States detectives, John HubbarI- and
William q. Griffin, who claimed to have bought
an unstamped bottle Of pomade or hair grease
from the store Of MIR. Strauss, No. 1c0 King
street.
Mr. Hubbard, the first witness, was intro
duced, but Mr.. Cohen objected to his testi-
mony being taken on the ground that he was
an inforiner, and was not qualified as witness,
being interested in the case. The District
Attorney opposed this objection, and, after
some argument, the Judge decided that the
law recently passed by the Legislature OF
South Carolina making all parties in the case
competent as witnesses was binding and in
force in the United States Court. The witness
then testified that he was a resident of the
city, and that on the evening of the 4th, in
company with Griffin, he went to the store Of
the defendant and called for hair oil. A bottle
was taken from the show case, which was
bought by Griffin for fifty cents. The bottle
was the same as that in court, and had been
since in the custody Of the District Attorney.
He recognized it as the same from certain
marks put upon the bottle and the wrapping
paper after they had left the store.
In his cross-examination he stated that he
did not remember the name, but saw no sign,
and presumed the parties named in the indict-
ment we're the proprietors, as he asked for
their names. There was no stamp on the bot
tie at the time, or the purchase would not have
been made. He stated that the label attached
10 the bottle bearing the names Of the pro-
prietors of the store and date Of purchase, had
been put on by them-the detectives. (This
label came off while the bottle was handled in
court, and the counsel tor the defence called
the attention Of the jury to the fact, and showed
how stamp might be removed in the same
manner).
Vim. d. Griffin testified that he made the
purchase and affixed the label before referred
to, the bottle being in his possession from the
4lh to the 9Th, when it was delivered to the
District Attorney. He had asked for the names
of the proprietors, and was told the names
given in the indictment. Isaac Mann was sup
posed to be a partner. from the fact that be
made the change, and StAeuss had given his
| name.
E. Strauss, witness for the defence, testified
that his name was Emanuel not Edward, as
named III the indictment. He said that he knew
the witnesses when they came to the store, as
he had seen them in Washington, and knew
them to be detectives. They had asked for O
suit Of clothes, and he said that Mann would
make them, but did not give his name as o
partner. He stated that he was not connected
with the store, but sold goods for his brother.
He had seen the bottles when bought at auc-
ton, and knew that they were stamped at the
time, but could not say if they had stamp on
when sold.
MIR. Pinkers, the clerk, testified that he had
frequently seen and handled the bottles in
cleaning the windows, and knew that they
were stamped, but was not positive if the one
in question had stamp on at the time of sale.
No other witness appearing, the counsel for
the defence opened the argument, and showed
that the informers were detectives paid for the
business. and that each case they made out
WAS q gain to them of one-haf the fine. The
ease with which the liable had been removed
was known, and it was fair suppoaition that,
in handling and wiping the bottles in the win
dow, the stamp might be accidently removed.
It had been shown that Isaac Mann was not
connected with the business, and his name was
only mentioned casually. Mr.. Cohen, in con-
tinuing, defended the position OF his clients
in an able manner, reviewing each point in the
testimony and arguing that the omission of a
stamp was altogether accidental.
Major D. T. Corbin, the District Attorney,
followed in reply, and read the law bearing
upon the points at issue, showing that the
stamp was required, and that all parties offer
ing or exposing for sale, unstamped, any arti-
cles named in the schedule, whether the arti-
cles wero of foreign or domestic manufacture,
were liuble to all the penalties imposed by law.
He presented the case to the jury as resting
simply on this violation, arguing to prove that
the ordinary precautions of tradesmen had
been neglected, or the stamp would have been'
and remained, affixed.
The Judge charged the jury on the points in
the case, citing the law, and explaining to
them. in a luminous and able manner, how ii
was to be obeyed. After an absence of few
moments, the jury returned, with verdict ol
guilty as to E. Strauss, and not guilty as to
Isaac Mann.
The jury was then discharged until Monday
at II A. NJ, and the court adjourned.