Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-09-30
JOHN Il. SURRATT.
His Final Discharge and Release
from Custody.

WASHINGTON, September 24.-In tht
Criminal Court this morning Judge Wy
lie discharged Surratt under the statuts
Of limitation, the Indictment not having
been found within two years after the
offsnse was alleged to have been commit
ted. The Criminal Court having yester.
day sustained the demurrer OF the prose
euticn 70 the special plea of the defense,
Mr. MerIick to-day set up 10 bar Of judg-
ment the act of 1893, statute of limita-
ton, claiming that the indictment
against Surratt was not found within
two years from the time Of the commits
sion of the alleged Offense, and hence the
prisoner was entitled 10 final discharge.
After argument on both sides, Judge
Wylis seic tAat the eindictnleate contained
five several counts, charging that the Of
Tense wss eonamitted on the 6bhof March,
1856, and on other days Intervening be-
tween that time snd the 18th Of April of
the same year. The defendant entered
plea Of not guilty generally, il June
last, and that plea remained on record
until the meeting Of this Court, at its Rd-
journed term, several days ago, when he
asked snd obtained permission 10 with
draw the plea OF {" not guilty" and filed
2 special plea to enable him TO plead the
benefit of the proclamation of pardon
and amnesty. The Court, considering
that he never before had an opportunity
to plead for pardon under the prociRmR-
lion, gave him permission 70 withdraw
the plea Of not guilty. and the next
day he flied special plea, that the am
nesty proclamation was applicable TO his
case The Government, through its re-
preventative, demurred TO this plea. The
4 4 frNra
stantial defects in the plea, and not for
infOrmality. After two days of argu-
ment on the issue, the Court intimatsd
that it would sustain the demurrer, the
plea being bad, and the proclamation not
applicable to the ofenss charged. This
morning the counsel for the defense in
dieated that there was still another
ground which the Court should take in
TO consideration in support Of the plea.
That was, that the 0ffense charged in the
indictrnent wss committed more than
two years before the Indictment wss
found. The act Of Congress Of April so,
1779, provides as follows:
" No person or persons shall be prose-
cuted, tried, or punished for treason or
other capital offense (wilful murder or
forgery excepted) unless the indictment
for the same shall be found by q grand
jury within three years next after the
treason or capital offense aforesaid snail
be done or committed, nor shall any per-
son be prosecuted, tried, or punished, for
any 0ffenEe not capital, nor for any fine
or forfeiture under any penal statute,
unless the Indictment or Information for
the same shall be found or instituted
within two years from the time Of COM
nlitting the Ofense, or mourning the fine
or forfeiture aforesaid provided that
nothing herein contained shall extend to
any person OF persons fleeing from JUS
tiee.n
Judge WyIie said: The language of
this statute is clear and str0lg Is is net
possible 30 misunderstood it. The in-
dictment was not found until more than
two years after the alleged Offense was
committed. Il contains no affirmation
that during the intervening period the
has hsd from justice. This IS
g fatal objection to the prosecution, unless
we find 1t wss necessary by the rules OF
law for the defendant TO plead the benefit
Of the statute by special plea. After
quoting legal authorities, the Judge said
thst be felt constrained in this case, with
the whole record before him, to say that
Judgment must be given for the defen-
dant. Mr.. Merriek asked that the judg-
ment be entered and the prisoner dis
charged. Mr.. Merrick, in reply to a
question, was informed by the Court
that the prisoner was discharged. Sur
ratt, having been congratulated by his
retired. The District Attorney
if necessary, to prepare another
Indictment to meet the views of the
Court. Judge Wylie said that the Dis
trict Attorney could have Slrratt rear
rested or the charge. The Court had no
judicial knowledge Of Surrstps absence
from the country. On the face OF the
record il appeared that the alleged crime
was committed more than two years ago.
II so he could not be prosecuted, no man
eOuld be deprived Of life or liberty under
the statute like that. The Court had no
right to hold Surratt to bail. The District
Attorney did not wish to argue against
she decision, but, az the subject was Of
great practical Importance, he wanted to
say Judge Wylis here interrupted the
gentleman, by remarking that be had
announced bis opinion. and that theFe-
fore it wss not necessary for the gentle
man to say anything more. The District
then entered an appeal fTsm
The decision of the Court.