The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-02-17
TIE GREAT WINE CASE.
OPENING OF THE ARGUMENT.

Judge Duren having Sufficiently recovered from
bis recent indisposition to admit OF a resumption
Of bis judicial duties, the United States Court was
in session yesterday usual, and the argument in
the wine case now some time pending and which
had been postponed from Thursday last, was
finally called after the customary routine business
of the court had been dispatched. At the Opening
the case yesterday, Mr.. Roselius, the counsel for
the Defendants raised the objection that the case
should be tried by jury, referring in support of
this position to the act of Congress of 1884, which
says that all cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction shall be 80 tried, and citing cases
which had occurred under the provisions of that
act
United States District Attorney Morgan replying
argued that the objection taken by the counsel
for defense came in at q bad time. When the case
had been first called, his honor had distinctly in.
quired, {" Is this jury csse?" He (the district
attorney had then risen, said that neither party
had prayed for q jury, and moved. consequently,
that the jury then present be discharged. He ar
gned that the counsel for defense in tactly as
senting to this, had thereby waved his privilege
Mr. Billings, for the prosecution, also spoke, ar.
guing that the counsel for defense had not only
waived the privilege on the first day, but had per.
petually reiterated that waiver ever since that
every question propounded to the government
witnesses on cross examination. every objection
made to the court,sw 90 many admissions that
the court had jurisdiction in the case.
Judge Durell expressed a strong opinion
against the objection raised by Mr.. Rose.
lius, and as one coming too late, and minated
that the defendants had waived the privilege of
trial by jury. He would however, be said. con-
suit the authorities quoted by both sides and
deliver more elaborate opinion upon the cues.
ton. He meanwhile directed the counsel to pro.
coed with their argument upon the merits of the
case, saying that he would consider both questions
together; If he should rule In favor of the obiec.
ton raised BY counsel for defense, he would, of
course. give no decision upon the merits of the
case otherwise he would decide both questions
at once. 5TTI-
Mr.. Roselius then moved to strike out from the
printed record of testimony taken, all such passa-
ges in tn evidence of the government experts as
were svowedly the results Of inquiries made by
them in Bordeaux, months after the shipment Of
these wines. This he moved on the ground that
the evidence in question had been hearsay evil
dence.
This led to another legal discussion and ELECTED
an extended citation OF rulings 10 the great San
Francisco champagne cases carried 70 the su
preme Court, and in which that court had even
admitted 10 testimony letters from parties not in.
terested in the proceedings. Judge DureIl at
once ruled that the evidence referred to was
oohlioccbicr
Supreme Court in the champagne cases even
farther than that court had carried IT, and remark
ing that. as in all probability this case would 20
to the Supreme Court, be might, if wrong, be
corrected there. a rrsm s'ICH
District Attorney Morgan then opened the arru. |
ment, speaking for an hour and a quarter. and |
relying mainly upon the fact that this wine was |
nvoiced as Blaye Superieure. and that the de. |
isndants own Witnesses had conclusiveiy proved |
that 1t was not Blaye SUPERHERO, while the con- |
signor had made sworn declaration before the |
U. b consul at bordeaux that II was. This would |
bring the case within the meaning Of the act of |
1854 and showed conclusvely that the invoice |
was false and fraudulent. Ii did not matter. for |
the sake of the argument, whether this wine was /
worth more than the invoice price or not: IL il |
was invoiced as an imitation of Blaye Superieure
II came within the provisions of certain section
providing that limitations shall pay the same dutes
as the genuine; II not invoiced an imitation
then II had, according to defendants own show.
ing. been falsely invoiced, and was forfeited The
OBJECT Of the act under which this seizure had
been made was not only to protect the revenues
OF the United States but to protect the people of
the United States from imposition by false brands
and invoices, and to protect the honest trader.
he therefore asked, not only in the name of the
government, but In the name of the people of the
United States, that the wines be declared Tor.
At the conclusion of the district attornev,s re-.
marks, the court was adjourned to this morninS
It III o'clock, when Mr.. Billings will take M the
argument on behalf Of the government. The
probabilities are that he will be followed by Mr.
'udd also for the government that Mr. Roselius
will next address the court on behalf of the claim
mt and that Randell Hunt, ESQ.,, will reply unon
be whole case. The argument bids fair tS con.
niue for week to come.