Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-10-23
FIELD DAY IN CRIMINAL COURT.
Some Noted Cases.
The Treasury Robbery.
The Perry urgi.ry aud Release of
snyder.
Charge Against q. G.. Fisher Of Alb.
attracting Court Papers.
The Grand Jury Challenged.

INFORMATION cases were called, and great IN
terest taken in the proceedings. The hour
that time the accused were all in court;
Messrs. Gilman, Brown and Halleck, charged
wi, win me Treasury robbery, being seated near
Edes) next, and c. g. Fisher. charged with
conspiracy in connection with Edes, Leigh
ton and Evans In the Snyder release case,
and also with abstTacting papers from the
court files, at the right Of the line. Messrs.
Evans and Leighton were also present. At
the blue table the following counsel were
seated: Gen. HeHkle. Messrs X. T. Merrck,
X X. Elliot, a. G.. Riddle, w. A. Cook, and
r Il. Stanton for The accused and Governor
Wells and Jrdge Wilson for the government.
IL will be remembered when the cases were
before the court on Monday last the arraign-
ment of Ottman, Halleck and Brown was
continued until to-day, and in the conspiracy
cases motions were made that the govern
ment be required to elect on which of the
three indictments found they would ask the
accused 10 plead. The defendants counsel
came prepared for thorough argument on
their motions. as was apparent from the long
row Of authOrities-19 pOnderOuS law books.
displayed in front of Mr.. Cook.
The snyder Release Case
At 10. O'Clock the court was convene',
Mr. Cook said that he felt pleasure in an
pearing to-day to argue the motion made IN
THE CASE OF Mr. EVANS
To require the government to elect-hecause
the case has at length been lifted beyond the
ordinary clamor. The motion was in the
of the indictments. The question is whether
they shall be required to plead to all or to
one OF the indictments, while others are per-
United to sleep. Mr. c. referred to indict-
ments 1892 for conspiracy, TO secure the re-
lease of Miller alias Snyder, 10 ,904 accessory
TO the felony, and 1923 for procuring false
recOgniZance. Can three arraignments take
place on the same subject-matter cut up in
different degrees and calling for different
Grades Of punishment in three different in
dictmentS.
Judge Macarthur caIIed for tho raa5ipo Of
10.904, charging accessory after the fact 10
the crime of felony and grand larceny.''
which was read by Mr.. Cook. The other in
dictments were also read and the statute
under which the last indictment is found
section 5y394, Revised Statutes, page O5I !
which prescribes punishment OF fine not
ceeding seven years.
Mr.. Cook explained that although this last
Indictment was single one, yet similar in
dictmeuts had been found against the others.
This kind of practice, said Mr.. Cook, sis
like the Irishman's toe; nothing like Ii in
the Heavens above or the earth beneath"
He read authorities to the effect that but one
indictment can be found for one offence.
reading from list Wharton's Criminal Law
sections 42f and 426. He claimed that no
peTo on should be twice put in jeopardy for
the same offence or be subject to more than
one Indictment. This was the same trans
action carved out into several indictments;
The same intent goes through all these
charges. viz: the release of Snyder. He read
from 10th Wendell, 1OS, that when two in
dlctmenis are found for the same offence
that first found shall De deemed superseded
by the second, and he said that so impatient
was the principle that i'm several states il hal
been enacted into statute. Mr.. Cook read
some English authorities on the same point,
and referred to the constitution of the United
states providing that no citizen shall be
twice put In jeopardy for the same offense
Here there appears to be studied endeavor
TO violate this principle. Chief Justice Taney
Orce said that If any individual had been
tried 10y state court, and an attempt was
made 10 try him by United States court,
ne would personally interfere, for such q
course would disgrace the civilization of the
age. This course did not bid the accused 10
look through one jury box for an acquittal,
bids the defendant in the heyday of youth to
look for long years of trial when the alleged
offence can be included in one indi ctment.
he said the object was to narrow this in
quiry 10 the offence charged. He knew that
this was the day of reform, but he would ask
was this reform TO carve three charges out of
oneioffence. He would ask if the government
had found any authority, and receiving no
response, Mr.. {. said: "Alas: the Oracles are
dumb"
Judge MacAr.hur.-Perhaps they did not
ike to interrupt you.
Mr.. COok.-I courted an interruption for
the purpose.
Judge observation-disclosures they were
spell bound by your elequence.
MI Cook hoped he would spell bind the
court, and read some other authorities.
District Attorney Wells followed, saying
parellel to this motion. After referring to
The scope of the information he said that
there was no extraordinary cutting up OF
the offence. The indictment for accessory
could not be tried until the principal is tried
and convicted. They were asked to elect il
they would try him on this Indictment,
which is impossible He read from Bishops
Criminal Procedure, sec. 4i4, that each count
charges different offence. He would be
Obliged to him If the gentlemen on the other
side would refer to a case where the govern
men had been required 10 elect at the outset
Mr.. Merrick.-I will refer you to One-a
discussion by the Supreme Court OF the
Mr.. Wells read from Bishops Common
Law, sec. ,0G2, that a man could be charged
and tried for two offences on the same indict-
d mentc ne asked II TINS was the case as to
offences in more than one Indictment. to
double charging he would say that the re-
cords OF the court showed most remarkable
case, 18th Cranch)-a party charged with
stealing five articles.
THE sAPE BURGLARY CASE
MI Wells.My attention is called to a
case fresh In the recollection OF some gentle
men here. and likely to remain fresh In the
memory OF great many people of this Dis
trict-the case of Benton and Miles, the In
d1viduals who robbed the safe of the District
Attorney. There are ten indictments in that
case against the same individual for rObbing
the same Identical safe on the same Identical
Mr.; Notwithstanding all that we
failed 10 get him.
Mr.. Weils.-My brother endeavOred hard
TO get him.
Mr. Riddle.-If they had let me alone I
would have gotten him.
Mr.. Wells:-Perhaps some OF the others of
US may try TO get him.
Mr. COok.-"Sufiicient unto the day is the
evil thereof"
Mr.. Wells.-We do not think these things
an evil. We think il a blessed thing to catch
rascals and convict them.
Mr.. CoOk.-Make haste.
Mr.. Riddle, after IN intimation of the court
that the indictments were properly drawn
urged that IL was the intention which was
involved. and said IL was astonishing to him
that these men were to be tried for three saw
eral offences committed at one time.
Mr.. Stanton suggested that the giving of
false bail " as the starting point, and he sug-
gested that the parties be called on TO plead
To one of the indictments only, so that when
the others may be called the parties would be
free 10 plead a conviction or acquittal.
Mr.. Wells proceeded, and said that the
crime OF conspiracy stood unlike any other
crime. He urged that the offences charged
were different; that the same proof is not in
all the cases; that in regard To the larceny
being common To all the indictments, but
the other proof being as wide as the east is
from the west. He read from 18th Wendell,
ITO, and the case Of Burman, in 5th Chranch
commencing at page AZ. He argued that the
doctrine OF putting the prosecutor TO his cleo
ton did not apply TO indictments but To the
mn n q N AFNG n