Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-08-17

The Motion TO Quash the Atts,
Argued-The Decision OF .chment
Reserved. ne Court

z. action being
one of osyl1ns,t. Mr.. f. read an affidavit OF
Gilman that the allegation that he had sent
or was about TO send his prCperty from the
District is untrue. and that the trunk and
effects belonged exclusively to his wife. aud
ne mad not removed, nor did he intend to re-
move. from the District. Also one from
Mrs Ottman that the trunk was her property,
and was forwarded 10 her at her request and
The sale OF the real estate here was for the
purpose OF purchasing property IN Brooklyn.
Also. one OF Peter l.. Gilman that Mrs. OFT
man sent for the trunk, and that ne had no
knowledge of his brother contemplating re-
mOval from the District, but on the other
hand, had heard him express his determine
tiOn TO continue the restaurant here Also
one OF John l.. Reynolds. an etnploye of tue
restaurant, that the trunk was forwarded
and Re corrobOTated p. l.. Gilman aS to ne
restaurant.
Judge Fisher, AT this point, claimed that
The afh'avits bad Just been filed. AMI under
!he Ia" he should nave had taree days no
Judge Wylie sair that he remembered a
case II which he brought IN the parties
making the afidavits and had them sub
I6cted 10 crOss-eEaT5tnation. And IN this
case. II the counsel intended that the case
should go or. The fidaviJS would he trea ted
as nOugbt. Judge ". further remarked tuaf
PARTIES resort 70 IN p0r'e afFIayitS for the
purpose Of deception, but DID rnt intend 10
say that such had been the case here. j.
must be admitted that to have the witnesses
present * the best course.
MIR. Elliot said he would leave the affiia-
Tlts out ard proceed on the papers, and ne
proceeded to argue tina; the asfiiavitS of the
district attorney and chief OF police in sup
port OF the attachment writ were Insufficient
iGaSmuch as they do not ailege that any
property was removed except trunk, (n5t
specify ing that II was defendaut'S.) and I'M
Ger the law trunk is exempt. NJ T.. real
from various authorities that the facts and
circumstance should DC fully set out.
Mr.. Elliot further said IL was apparent
rom the bill of particulars that this was IN
action in forte ard II hiss been heid that an
attachment would not lie in such cases He
read that when the plaintiff alleges the cause
OF action TO be or contract ard II appears
that tie action y not o. contract the writ
should he dismissed. The writ Is defective
IiaiuuH has = Just right to recover He
claimed that he hal shown that the case had
not been brought within the stat1tc.
Judge Fisher, :Cr the government. SaiIf9at
when ne instituted the proceed ugS he took
for his guide the law itself, and would adrait
that the law was Ike many other acts. i'm
perfect. owing - the t.nker:ug n commit
tees. lie rcat the Uule OF The court o. the
subject, and the act. ADD PROCEEDED TO com
pare The wording a. he writ with that OF Tie
act, noting that they did roI vary in mean
ing. lie claimed that the prosecution was re-
gDircd 20 make al AFFIDAVIT setting forth the
grounds (Or reasons Of the belief, AMI the law
had been complied With Re claimed that The
nCaNlt o. pi2tntlf need not be supported BY
tbeaf.davit Of another party. that the claim
is a jest one IN TINS case the witness sup
ports TIE plaint,t, and further states his rea-
act consider II as son please AID examine
The a1fiGavltS. ard the conclusion ynUsr be
that the statute has been complied with. ana
mat good cause Is stated fOv tic beHet that
he 90 was about 70 remove Re ftrthe,
sand that the government was prepared 10
prove what they had set forth in the affiia-
wits as soon as The defendant travesSet
Judge Fisher further argued that the law as
quoted by Mr.. =. did not apply as the act ia
force here should stand by Itself
Mr.. Elliott replied by quoting from the
I. - n 10 ont 10
harsh remedy and the law must be strictly
construed. He claimed that the aftilavitS
are Insufficient, as he law requires that il
must appear thaf The plaintiff has Just
right to recover. Mr.. RIChariS says he be
EeveS,' but that il not Sufficient. HnClSirn-
CT that IL should toe shown tuat defendant
has removed or is about To remove There
was 20 law prohibiting party from parting
with hi property and there Is is no evidence
that be could not respond f0r every dollar
claimed. He claimed that the aft,davltS
were insufficient ard that the grounds there
Of were rot within the statute.
Judge Wyhe LoIe called attention 10 the
TACT that the rule OF the court and The a..
offered n that the ruie required that the
affidavit should set forth that the p!aI0tifT
Lad good cause Of action and the law that
the a affidavit should support tire affidavit of
Tie plaintiff, fUT n hut few cases COulI q
third party swear positively as to the caH,e
OF action being good
Nj. Elliot Claimed. IN conclusion, that they
were compelled 10 ask hat this &ftacnrrec
De- Guashed. Under The statute they c0uII
recover the property rs giving bond; but the
statute requires not bond for the appraised
value land such they would not object to-
mt iOr u g tull amount. Here was 2 mar IN
prison, It's hands tied, his property locked
up. and his wife and children are TO suffer
He claimed that the defendant had right 10
the enjoyment OF the property until the fina!
hearing MI. Gilman to-day was 2 citizen
az the United States, entitled 20 the prOiet-
lion of the law, and he hoped tnat the attach
lHent would b Guashed. He asked II there
were facts to be traVerSei, that an ODpOrtC-
nifty be given 10 produce oral proof The fact
that o. intended to buy property in BrOc,,-
was the transfer al his property here. To
give other than 4 strict construction wOulr.
ia his opinion, work "a wrong and an injury
lie asked by whom were the afdavits ma Re,
both officers OF the government.
Judge Nyiie referred 70 the case of Osborn,
III the supreme Court Of the United states.
III which II was held that, the government
beng unable to swear, IL was competent for
its officers to make afIiiavit.
Mr.. Elliot a. kei, what TeireSs had the de-
fcLdart iOitInanJ n the government took
this property and he Afterwards was cleared
Of the whole transaction. He could not sue
the government
Judge Wylie said IL was presumed that the
government was always ready 10 pay what
was due rom IL
Mr.. Elliott -PTesUned only.
Judge WyEe remarked that the case was
8! % much Importance that 10 should not he
acted on hastily, ami he would take The
papers and consider The case.
PICSICS. EXCURSIONS. &C, To NIGHT
AND To IORROW--IHg annual picnic and
games Of the Caletonian club, OF this city.
takes place tomorrow at HGvpr'S Tth tree.
no afWaD rgH3u ..,g