National Republican., 1875-09-06
The CiSE OF 7. W. BROWN.
HIS FURTHER HEARING SATURDAY
HIS oFiEcTos TO SQUIRE MILLS
A PLEA OF JURISDICTION FILED
The Point Is Promptly 0verruled.
Argument OF Counsel-More Testimony
Introduced-Mr. Horace whitney
Recalled-A Reporter ON the
stand-The Defense object
to His statement-stiII
ON the Stand.

The preliminary examination of Theodore W.
Brown, much better known in this community un-
der the nickname of Peg-leg Brown, charged
with completely In the Treasury robbery of s47,-
oe7.66 from the cash-room on the I'd of June last
was continued Saturday afternoon In the Circuit
Courtroom, before acting Judge Samuel y. Mills.
Although nothing more than q hearing, under the
Information filed, which in its results decides
whether sufficient testimony has been produced
to warrant the holding of the accused for the ac-
tion Of the grand jury or restoring the man his
liberty, still the defense has made such stub
born fight in the case as to clothe 1t with deeper
interest In the eyes Of the community, and conse.
quently draws o large attendance at the court
room. Considering the situation Of the case and
the court in which the preli mary examination
is being made, it being the lowest in the
course pursued By the counsel for the defsnss
He must be satisfied, as the community is, that
the accused will De sent to q higher court, where
MS attorneys objections would be perfectly
but to clog the court by such delays as have
been made in the past two days while it is moth
ing more than court Of inquiry appears entirely
self or client. The frmness of acting Judge Mills
thus far, In his efforts to develop the facts and
reach the truth In the case has been COM
mended on every SIDE. His action in reminding
the counsel for the defense that there was a
course OF redress accessible to them If they OBJ
the examination, but that 1t was idle to waste
time In argument, received general Endorsement
from persons possessing knowledge of law, and
supposed to be we'll posted. There was a DELAY
also In resuming the examination. The hour for
the hearing was set Tor two o'clock but lt was
forty. nye minutes past that time before the case
Before any evidence was presented, Colonel
COOK arose and laid that he had plea to make
which he would then read unless the court OBJ.
jected.
The Judge stated that there was no objection.
and probably that was the most appropriate time,
Colonel Cook then submitted the following
plea as to
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT,
ss at present constituted to sit in Judgment on
the case.
In the Police Court of the District of Columbia.
United States VS.. Theodore W. Brown, informa-
tion for larceny.
proper person, comes into court and saith that the
United States should not proceed in the case, be-
cause protesting that he s not guilty Of the crime
fendant saith that the person now holding said
court is without any authority or power to do so:
in this that one William B. Smell Is the Judge Of
said court as created by the act of Congress Of the
United States approved June II, 1870 and that
whenever he is within the District of Columbia.
II Is ms GUY 70 preside IN said court, unless in
Smell was at present within said District and
that the person now claiming the right to hold
said court, viz: one Samuel o. Mills was desig-
mated to perform the duties of the said Smell onfv
during the absence of the said Smell, and that
with the return Of said Smell, after atemporary
longer exist, and this the said Theodore W.
Brown, the defendant, is ready to verify whereof
he prays Judgment II further hearing can be had
Of the crime charged against him In said court
before said Mills. And Tor
AFURTHKR PLEA
the said defendant comes into court. and while
protesting that he is not guilty Of the crime
charged against him, says that by the Oonstitu-
tion Of the United States, section all officers Of
the United States must be appointed upon the
nomination Of the President, as therein prescribed
with the confirmation Of the Senate unless Con-
oficers in the President IN the courts of law. or
in the heads Of the Departments, and he further
says that Congress has not so provided for the
case Of the absence, Sickness or disability of the
proper judge thereof, aud that the said Mills
holds no legal appointment TO act judge Of said
court, and that he has not been designated or
appointed to do so under any act OF Congress by
either the President, the head Of Department,
& or The e. Court OF the District Of Columbia, but
IS organized by Congress, is composed Of nvs
And this the said Theodore W. Brown is rsady
to verify, wherefore he prsys Judgment whethers
be should be called on IN any manner to answer
the crime charged against him before the said
sworn and subscribed before me, this in day
Of September, A. d. 1875. B. F. LEIGHTON,
Deputy CLERK Police Court d. o.
U
Colonel Cook said that in the first plea dis
ttnct line is drawn. between the absence of the
Judge and disability. This appointment was
made on account of absence, which was invali-
dated, as the judge, at the time he was speaking
was ,hP present IN the eIy The second plea refers
than by the President of the United States as
vested in him by the Constitution: The import
ance OF the plea his honor would readily see
The prosecution entered demurrer.
THE coupr DIppc-vD
the clerk TO file the plea, and said It was erro-
neous. The facts as slleg ed in the first plea are
Incorrect as set forth, as the commission would
show. II provides for pro tenn: judge to hold
duties. Hepossessed no official knowledge ofJudge
Snelis presence in the city, but had he ard
privately that be was here and sick.
Colonel Cook. Has he not given proof of his
presence and taken official action in hfs court by
appointing to-day clerk to the court in the
place of Mr. Dawson2
Judge Mills. have no official knowledge of
the fact, and nothing Of the kind was done in the
court to-day; but, on the contrary, have private
Information that nothing Of the kind has been
done.
Colonel Cook Well, the papers say 50, and
have heard 1t from different sources. Are you
Judge Mills. am. The plea is not sustained,
and the prosecution will proceed with the case.
Mr.. Wilson said that although It was not in the
tine to submit the sdaTii OF ho%ss Psbn - haa
Of Baltimore, Md, about which there had been an
understanding between the counsel on the day
previous.
Colonel Cook objected to the reception of the
paper as evidence.
bir. Wilson stated that in Offering the az
fdavit the prosecution intended to show that
some time after the Treasury robbery William H.
ottman went 70 the city Of Baltimore, and while
q $500 bill changed. Then, in
THE COURSE or EVIDENCE,
they proposed to prove that considerable OF this
money taken from the Treasury on the ID of June
after being received BY him, much Of 1t passed
into the custody of the defendant.
Colonel Cook said that he objected TO the
papers reception as evidence, as there was moth
ing therein contained applying directly or indi-
rectl to bis client. The charge, It stood that
larceny in the Treasury Departm ent OF az op7 g.
The evidence must be confined to the issue. The
paper offered proposes to give evidence that
OtIman, while In Baltimore, put of o $500 bill.
Its character does not appear. There was moth
ing in the affidavit to show that the note was
to show that Gilman and Brown were associated
in Baltimore. 1t was the action of one Individual
alone, Ottman, that the prosecution attempted to
oter In evidence against Brown. 1t might be
well enough for the counsel TO say that In the fu-
ture they expected to make connection be-
tween Brown and Ottman. II would save time
and labor If they would come to that point sooner
and relieve the counsel on both sides Of unneces-
sary work. He did not think the paper should
be received as evidence against his client, and
read from several authorities In support Of his
objection.
The Court remarked that were the point raised
before jury it mia ht have some weight but as he
had said before, this was only Q preliminary ex-
animation TO SCI II the defendant should be held.
The objection was overruled.