The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-07-16

GRIMM AL CoUnT-Judgc WWie.-This court
met at 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and
transacted the following business;
MOTION TO QUAsH sURRATT's INDICTMENT,
Mr.. Merrick called up his motion to quaah
the indictment for murder against John IL.
Surratt, on the grounds stated therein, spub-
lished In these reports last week.
Mr.. NJ. argued In favor Of the motion at
some length. He quoted Doyle ys. the state
| of Ohio, II Ohio Rep, as deciding that the
dictment could DO plead In bar In a criminal
| case, and that there could be no waiver OF the
| right OF the accused in criminal cases to con-
cause. He contended that the court could try
| no person except upon indictment; nothing
but a competent grand Jury could find an In
dictment, and Il 2 body OF men, improperly
crime, such paper would not be an Indictment,
but a paper Of no more effect than II three
The Court. Mr.. Merrick, l suggest that you
| llrst get rid of your plea Of not guilty.
| Mr.. Merrick. Then I'll ask leave OF your
honor to withdraw the plea OF not guilty,
| though do not think II necessary.
| The Court did not see how the motion to
quash could be entertained while the plea OF
MI. Merrick. i'll enter that motion then, and
have no doubt your honor will grant 1t.
Mr., Riddle. cannot say what his honor will
grant, but ! must Say II he does 1t Will be a
Mr.. Merrick. The Ohio case does not contcnl-
plate the withdrawal OF the plea OF not
The Court. But the Ohio courts have never
| Mr.. Riddle.'The Ohio courts hold that there
| can be no waiver In criminal proceeding,
| but In this respect they differ from all the
| courts OF Europe and America.
Mr.. Merrick did not see how waiver OF a
| criminal could give court Jurisdiction,
| Mr.. Darlington argued that although the
| accused could not be held to q waiver OF his
right, yet it might be considered that he was
estopped.
his own act. There is no estoppel in this
| case. 1t is too warm to waste time on points
that have nothing In them -, .
| grounds. If this was challenge to the grand
| Jury, II comes too late.
The Court. There is no doubt OF that.
| Air. Darlington said II II was n motion to
Quash the Indictment It must be for matter
| apparent on the face Of the record. He quoted
| Wharton's Criminal Law, as saying in terms
that . the illegal selection OF the grand Jurors
| motion;r and thatit is error to quash au in
dictment for matters extrinsc the record.
| The Court intimated that 1t did not hold
Wharton,s Criminal Law In high estimation
MIR. Darlington argued that a plea in abate.
ment was the only remedy by which the i'm.
proper constitution OF the grand jury could be
reached, and that 1t Is now too late to make
such plea.
The Court. II the facts arc admitted, Whist
Mr.. Darlington argued that no plea could be
| entered now, and that was the need that coun-
| sci should insist that the regular form should
| be followed,
| Mr.. Riddle said that counsel could not with.
draw the plea Of "nOt guilty" As 1t was
| pleaded IN person, 1t must he withdrawn In
/ person,
Mr.. Riddle did not admit the facts to be ~
| stated in the affidavit, but agreed to admit
| them for the purposes of this argument, and
| endorsed on the motion an agreement to that
| effect.
Mr.. Merrick, after n resume OF his argument
| stated as 4 reason Tor pressing his motion Il
| Quash the indictment that II had gotten GU
| that bench warrant would be Issued for Sur
| raft, and thia prevented him from getting EN-
| ployment. He was at liberty, but u sword wal
| suspended above hiH head by asingle hair, ant
he wanted to get rid of it, He held that now
as the motion stated the facts, and Mr.. Riddle
had, in writing, consented to admit them n
true, they did appear on the record, and ever
on Mr. Clearinghouse ground the motion wal
| gTAntable.
| After some discussion between Messrs. Oar
| rinKton and Merrck, as to what constitutes
record, the Court held the question under ad
visement.
DISCHARGED.
The grand jury recommended the dischsrg
| of JOhu Palm, Tor resisting an oificerj J. w
| FriZZle, for assault and battery, and Of X
| Jones, for larceny, and the court ordered thei
discharge accordingly,
The court then adjourned until Tuesda
| next,