Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-12-13
LOCAL NE VS..
THE SNYDER RELEASE CASE.
Proceedings I'm the Criminal Gear
To 0ny

A Cook for the defendant. The indlctmenf
feloniously sckpowledge q certain r,scoSns-
rance OF bail In the name OF David Eies To a
certain cause wherein the United STATES vas
plaintiff and Edward W. Miller alias SNYDER
defendant, charged with the grand Iareeny
OF certain goods nom the store OF Perry
THE following LURoRs WE'RE cALLxp.
Isaac Il. Childs. q. W. Utermehle, carter Al.
stewart. q. W, Hopkins. James Frasier,
Francis Posey.@ Richard B. Grimm. Edwin
G. Baum. VIM. y. RIDER Warren Dente
Joseph i. Jenkins, aud Gideon W. LarneG.
The government claimed the night 10 chal-
lenge under the sisth section OF the Revised
Mr.. Cook claimed that this section referred
10 the courts of the United States. and was
not applicable 20 the courts OF the District.
Mr.. Cook argued at considerable length
that this was not court OF the United
Judge Macarthur said the General Term
had decided that
THIS Is A UNITED STATES COURT.
Mr.. Cook closed by saying that In the acts
OF Congress on the subject the practice ~
prescribed for District and Circuit Courts 81
the United States. and another law Is for the
courts OF the District OF Columbia limiting
the challenges 10 four by the defendant
District Attorney Wells urget that there
was no ambiguity In the statutes cited, and
that they gave the government the right 10
Mr.. Wilson argued that by the very terms
OF the law this court has the same powers as
other courts OF the United states. lie FUR
Their urged that the statutes should be taEen
together, as they did not conflict. and he
said IL the defence Is right, then a mau on
trial Tor murder Is not entitled la any chal-
Mr.. Cook closed the argument, ana in re-
ply TO the court said that they hal hereto
fore been acting under the act OF Il =.
The court said that there Was no necessity
for further argument; he would rule as here
toiore, giving 20 the government
THE RIGHT TO cHALLENGE.
L. noted eyCpnffnn
The governments challenge was Is to
Francis Posey, and the defence challenged
q. w. Ctermehle aud Joseph I jenkins.
James 8. Scsggs, Alexander Duehsy and
Thos. Lowe were called In their places.
A colloquy here took place between Col.
Cook and the court rs 10 the number of cnal-
lenges by the defendant, aud Col. Cook an
swering that he claimed ten In all, the court
stated he was so entitled.
Mr.. Cook then challenged James Frasier.
James s. Scaggs, Alex. Duehay sad Thomas
Hiiieary Burk, william b. Moses. James
McDermOtt and DAM Laughran we're called,
and the government challenged Mr.. Burk.
Joseph A. Simms, cOlored, was called aud
accepted.
is composed OF Messrs. Childs. Stewart
Hopkins, Griffin, Baum, Ryder Dents
LaTner, Moses, McOermotI, Lou ghran and
orENISG ARGUMENT FOR THE GOVERN
MINT.
District Attorney Wells al nool opened
crime. not committed secretly, but in a pub
lie place, in the open light OF day; and it IL
uncommon, too, because ~ steps right up
and boldly saps our Judicial system. Any
offence having SO bold a design was a serious
one. They would show first that a robbery al
most unparalleled in boldness had been com
mitted here, and that after patient. diligenL
Effort, person believed 10 be the guilty
contriver had been brought before the Police
Court and was committed, and he escapes
from the jail by even a bolder act than the
= frOn faI fin
broad daylight To give bail at the Police
Court, and they did not stop at straw bail.
but personated a most respectable citizen
bar (Green) stood up, stating that his name
was David Edes, giving the name aud de-
, scTi6ing Edes property: viii be simple
10 jail, and the release, and they expected 10
prove that this mar is the party who falsely
personated Edes. he referred 20 the identin-
cation Of the prisoner by Mr.. Barton, by a
scar on the neck, and said that with This evil
dence and other corroborating evidence they
expected TO make out case.
Mr.. COOK FOR DEFESCE
Mr.. Cook said that ''promisesSlike pie
crusts are made to be broken" and in this
case they may fail the government is not
infallsDle; no more so than an individual.
What il IL should appear that Green lives al
Mash Market? That does not prove his
guilt. They would attempt 20 prove the de-
able 10 do il. even by the potent scar. The
defence expected TO show that be was not
the man, and that on the day the offence was
committed he was at his home. They will
ask TO convict the prisoner on the testimony
of persons who had never seen him before
but they should remember the difficult ,,s,s,
should consider the prisoner In .ocenf nntfi
the government make IL a. .,ear maj a reen.
beyond all reasonable .Iou6t. is the person
who committed t.e ofYence.
THE TESTIMONY.
A recess was taken, and on reassem bling
Mr.. Augustus II. Perry was sworn for the gov
eminent He testified that he is engaged
with his brother, 7. j. 8. Perry, in the dry
enue and 9th street
Mr.. Wilson asked II there had been a rob
berry or larceny committed within two years
Mr.. Cook objected, on the ground that there
was no averment In the indictment that the
store Of Perry was robbed or goods stolen
and il was immaterisi To show his. "'
The court ruled that il was unnecessary
even 10 show burglary; IL was sufficient 10
show that there was case pending In the
HoaCord L. Prince, clerk of the Police Court.
Witness first produced the affidavit on which
the warrant for the arrest OF Snyder; the
warrant and the recogniZance ven in the
The government proposed 20 put the AZ
ndayit and warrant In evidence and Mr..
The court overruled the objection, and
Mr.. Wilson read the am tavit OF James A.
McDeyitt, made on the 30th day OF JGne,
biiot hc hdth just Cdu>t 10 suspect E-0. w.
Snyder, &c. was read, as also the warrant
cel,tei by j. A. McDevitt
Mr.. Wilson proposed 10 read the recog-
nfzance, and Mr.. Cook objected, saying that
il was for the appearance OF one Edward w.
Schneider. when the Indictment lays the
name as Edward W. Miller; and IL appears
TO have been acknowledged before the dep
MY clerk, wien, under the law, IL ia the
judges duty 10 take acknowledgements He
claimed that the clerk, not having the power
The paper must be treated as a nudity. He
further argued that IL should appear 10 the
indictment that the lecogni zance was taken
before the judge OF the court, and in this the
indictment was defective.
A SICKENING COAL OF HORROR
Shocking and Distressing Dedfh of HotheT.-
Mrs. Mary McComas, No. 80 Miller street,
was shockingly and fatally burned on Satur-
day afternoon by a coal oil explosion. Sne
was always careful In the use OF the oil, and
took every precaution she thought necessary
10 prevent an accident A lamp was burn
ing On the table, and desiring 10 use another