Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-09-22
The Treasury Robbery.

MOTION TO REDUCE THE BAIL OF oTTMAN.
This morning, in the Criminal Court.
Judge Macarthur, the case of Gilman
charged with the larceny of Si7 900 from the
Treasury, on the IA OF June, was called up
by Messrs. Merrick and Elliott. the counsel
for the accused, on a motion for a reduction
OF the bail required-Si0, 600. District At
tOrney Wells and Hon. jeremiah Wilson ap-
leaitd ior The Government, and suggested
that They would be ready to argue the motion
after lhe current business OF the day.
THE TEXT OF THE MOTION
is as follows:-"The petition of William II
Gilman respectfully shows unto the court
that on the 9th day OF August, 1875, he was,
by order of the judge OF the Police Court,
committed TO The common jail of the District
Aforesaid on a charge of grand larceny, and
in default of bail in the sum OF 500 900.
subsequently, TO wit: on the - day of
before the Hon. Andrew Wylie, associate
Justice OF the Supreme Court aforesaid, at
chambers, on "habeas corpus, TO admit to
bail /" and said justice then and there REQ uired
bail in the sum of $4,000, in default whereof
petitioner was thereupon remanded To the
common jail Aforesaid, where he is now and
hath been ever since said 9th day OF August
confined and restrained of his liberty. Pc
titioner further shows unto the court that
by reason OF the seizure and attachment
OF all and singular his goods and
chattels, lands and tenements by tie
government of the United States, under
and by virtue of the civil suits against
him brought by said government, as plain
tiff within this and another Jurisdiction, aud
In respect to the ALLEGED claim of said gov
eminent 10 recover from petitioner the sum
OF s4i 600 and upwards, by reason of alleged
offence Imputed TO him-whereby he is re-
strained of his liberty as aforesaid, AID is
and has been ever since said 9Th day OF Au-
gust unable to furnish the amount of bail re-
Qulred by the order last Aforesaid; and he is
advised that the offence with which he is
ch lrged is bailable by law, and he is further
advised that said amount OF bail is, under
the circumstances OF the case as they appear
as Aforesaid, excessive, and so IL measured
either by the nature OF the charge against
him, or his ability to furnish the Same.
or both, and Is therefore contrary 70 the letter
and spirit Of the Constitution OF the IJnifed
States, and TO the well settled practice OF
this court In similar cases. And he is fur
ther advised that be Is Of right and according
10 due course of law entitled To his liberty
upon giving bail In reasonable and proper
sum, which he 10 ready and willing 10 do:
Dut Tor the reasons aforesaid he cannot fIIrs
nlsh the amount of bail required as afore-
SAID, which IN petitioners case amounts in
elect TO denial Of the right of hail.
on charge OF an offence clearly bailable by
law; ana inasmuch as your honor holding
The Criminal Court as aforesaid has exclu-
slve jurisdiction in criminal cases In said
District, petitioner prays that an order may
De passed reducing the amount Of bail re-
quired as last Aforesaid TO a reasonable and
proper sum, according to- the practice I'm
other cases OF similar character In this