National Republican., 1875-09-08

Judge Samuel y. Mills, of the Police Court. Al
the close Of the examination on Saturday last the
point under consideration was an objection raised
by Col. Cook, counsel for the defense, as to the
admission OF certain testimony proposed by the
prosecution. Mr.. Henry U. Noyes, the witness on
the stand at that time after testifying TO an in.
teryiew with Benjamin b. Halieck, which he TOOK
down in writing, was asked by the counsel for the
Government TO repeat IT.. At this point Col. Cook
was on trial, and not Halleck, and, as no connec-
tion had been established between the two, the
testimony was not relevant. Argument was
made by the counsel On both sides, but before
reaching q decision the court adjourned.
The same interest was manifested on the trial
consequently there was a large assemblage Of
spectators In the courtroom, among them many
Of the friends and acquaintances of the accused,
who have Lot only watched the progress Of the
mented on the testimony and its bearing on the
guilt of Brown as an accomplice 10 the robbery,
and the prospects Of his conviction or aequittal.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WELLS.
The recently appointed United States District
Attorney, ex Gov. H. H. Wells, came into court
before the opening of the case, and took o seat
beside Hon. J. F. Wilson, special attorney for the
Judge Fisher was present previous to the open.
ing, but retired before the hearing began.
Two O'Clock was the time set for resuming the
vexstious delay, for which It is not difficult TO
place the responsibility, and 1t was nearly three
O'Clock when Judge Mills took his seat on the
bench On the opening OF the court, Col. Cook
entered the following motion:
MOTION FOR DISCHARGE.
In the Police Court of the District Of Columbia.
United States VS.. Theodore W. Brown, In
formation for larceny.
LIST. Because there is no evidence to support the
charge made against him, and which he has been
called on to answer; & w That @ ot larceny: arc
through its attorney, that it was not expected to
offer any proOft to sustain the charge.
Sd. Because NO information exists charging him
with any other ofense, and because he is not held
on any other, or been called upon to answer any
other. WILLIAM A. Cook,
Attorney for the Defense.
Col. Cook proceeded to address the court on the
N otion he had made, and cited numerous authori-
ties, among them the Constitution of the United
distinct accusation there could not DC any exami-
tiCn into an alleged otfense. The only power the
inferior court possessed was to examine into the
discharged. The charge against Theodore W.
Brown was larceny. That charge has been NET
exploded and abandoned. That was vitually the
position of the United States that day. Neither
was It competent for the prosecution TO take mp
the case on another Information without giving
sufficient and ample notice.
q He wanted to know how II was legal to hold the
defendant any longer when the prosecution had
abandoned the case under the charge. and no no.
tice OF another information had been given. The
strange and wonderful sight was being presented
Of the prosecution attempting to try man with
out presenting a charge against him, and the
judge was asked to commit the stupendous folly
of making out commitment TO jail under such
circumstances.
1t was step by step that every individual must
law, otherwise be could not be convicted under
the law. The charge must exist. the nature OF
the ottense be setout and with such precision as to
give the offending party notice OF what he must
respond to as the charge against him.
THE CONSTITUTION
Ouarantees nr0tection avery cftfTan-fka q
humblest as well as the most exalted-and that
court, as we'll as the highest, dare not disregard
It's elementary principles.
If the evidence up to that time had been SUM-
cient TO satisfy his Honor that Theodore W.
Brown was implicated in the robbery, then he
could be held until the information was amended
and a new complaint made, and they were per-
fectly willing to have It done. Theodore W.
Brown would sit in the courtroom and await
their pleasure.
ltis clear that where there is Q failure to sup
bort sIsScsc aeon satinn made there Is OILY one
course for the presiding judge to pursue. II he is
not held to answer an amended information, and
the prosecution fails to present a new charge,
then the prisoner must be discharged. He was
bold to assert that the counsel for the prosecution
could not present either argument or authority y
was permitted to go free the grand jury would
soon be in secret session, and II desired the keen
detectiyes asthey found him sporting at Sarstoss,
can fnd him again, and bring him to answer an-
other charge. He had come from his pleasures
and enioyments to answer this charge, which has
been abandoned by the Government, and now he
1s entitled to his liberty. The Government had
brought talent and ability into the case. and he
asked for his poor deGenseless client the small
pittsnce Of knowing few hours in advance what
he is charged with.
Mr.. WILSON REJoINs.
Mr.. Wilson said that he had listened to Mr..
Cook with great pleasure, as both In argument
and citation he had sustained the decisions OF his
Honor previously given in regard to the case. 1t
was merely preliminary examination, in which
haa arfT In all nh m at "a
Honor hears 1t. and then decides whether to hold
the accused for q further answer or on another
charge On I'd he let drop the
position. He knew more of the case now than
then. He was better acquainted -i,,n IT, and had
he known as much as he .ru now he would not
al"sr tried to deal fairly. He thous ht the srgu:
ment made by Mr.. Cook completely vindicated
the position the court ad taken and the decision
rendered by his Honor last Friday.
COLONEL COOK AGAIN.
Dol Cook said that under the new light and
last announcement he could not press the motion.
1t seemed that discovery had been made: 1ft
did not turn out to the extent anticipated the mo-
tion still held good and his client was NOT Only
formation, that he may prepare his defense. He
was amazed, startled and shocked when gentle
men rise and state that in an initial court funda
mental rules and principles are to be set aside,
and brought to bear on 3 petit jury. What the
new attitude OF the prosecution would be re
ii.
The testimony was here resumed.
FURTHER OBJECTION.
Mr.. Henry o. Noyes recalled:
The objection Of the counsel for the defense
coming up for discussion, Mr.. Wilson main
tanned that a precedent had been established By
admitting the afidavit of Thomas Filbin.
Col. Cook replied that was admitted BY an un
derstanding between counsel he then pro
He said that Haileck was a competent witness
No crime had been proven against him, and his
declarations made in the absence of Brown 1t was
not HalIeck produced and his evidence taken
That was the competent testimony.
He then read from different works to show that
the confession Of principal could not be re
ceived as evidence against an accessory.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WELLS
thought they would get on more rapidly II they
kept In mind what they were doing. They wer'
not trying Brown on an indictment, but trying u
find out If Brown was implicated In the larceny nl
might not think that fair statement, but tha
was merely because he was on that side. Wha
they were doing, and what It was their duty 2
csse. The ingenuity Of the learned gentleman
Colonel Cook is remarkable, and he makes ou
Of words what cannot be found In them.
confession Of Hslleck as evidence against Brown
1t is intended to establish the larceny, and tha
very fact can Be- Dy tss lei SI
confession alone could convict Brown; but thert
are many BY confession that could establiEh o
larceny. By the testimony Of the witness theI
never have been denied that s4T .o5 was stolel
from the United States Treasury.
THE COURT
thought that the rule of evidence was 50 well un
derstood that he was much surprised by the coun
sell consuming so much time in argument. II,
would admit the statement of Halleck until
referred to Brown, and then he would hear obJec
tions.
THE TESTIMONY.
Mr.. Noyes then proceeded to testify. Tn
leck gave It. 1t was afterwards published a
written. copy of the Star in which IL wa
printed was submitted, but Colonel Cook oblecte'
to its being read, and the witness related the in
terviev, refresbing his memory from the pub
nshed article. The interview ls similar TO tn
one published in THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN, o
Tuesday, August 10.
By his Honor: The money was put in the water
Crossexamined: The statement was made q
wife and other persons. He was under arrest
He said that 1t was the package Of 900 stole
from the Treasury. Gates told him that 10 was
and said that he took II from the cash. room. H
described Gates to the witness; told how an
when Gates took the money; said that It was don
where It was lying. Halleck did not know wher
Gates lived. He said that Gates told him tha
he had help inside. Did not say Brown was Il
the transaction. Did not know, but suspects
that be wss from.the fact that he addressed
package for Ottmsn to Brown, which he told Hal
the Interview; bis negotiations with Ottman Wer
TO get rid Of the money.
The court then adjourned until noon to-day G
the Police Court building.