National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-10-25
THE CRIMINAL COURT.
Arguments in the Bogus-Edss Case The
Treasury Robbery Gase-Further Hearing
on Monday Next.

Arguments IN the Bogus-Edes Case - The
Treasury Robbery Gase-Further Hearing
On Monday Next.
Saturday morning at 10 o'clock, that being the
hour set by Judge Macarthur for the arraign-
ment Of Halleck, Brown and Ottman, charged
with the $4,000 robbery, and Green, Fisher,
Leighton and Evans, charged with abstrscting
court fle-papers, &c, and with conspiracy in the
release Of Snyder, the Perry's store robbsr, all
the parties named appeared before 10 o'clock with
their counsel, Messrs. Elliott, Henkle, Merrick,
Riddle, Stanton and Cook, and District Attorney
Wells and bon. ]. NJ. Wilson appeared for the
Government.
The court, long before the hour set, was well
filled with members Of the bar and others. the for
mer alone being admitted within the railing.
At O'Clock exactly, Judge Macarthur came
IN and opened the court.
MT Cook said 1t was with pleasure that he ap-
peared in behalf Of Mr.. Evans, and to support the
motion for the selection Of an Indictment upon
which Mr.. Evans was to be arraigned, and upon
which he would be required to plead. Speaking
of the indictments for conspiracy In securing the
release Of Snyder for being an accessory to the
felony, and for procuring false recogniLanee, he
asked If they should be required TO plead TO all
Of these d%sS ~ or only e one, while others
could take place upon three different indictments
upon the same subject matter, each calling for
three different punishments In case Of guilt. He
did not believe the Court would allow It. Judge
Macarthur asked Mr.. Cook TO be kind enough 10
read No. 10 ,9o4, the indictment charging i'scees
sorry after the TACT TO the crime Of felony and grand
larceny" which be did, and also the other indIct
menis MIR. Cook alsorea from page lo5I Of the
Revised Statutes the punishment prescribed for
the offence named in the lasttndictment, of PRO
curing false recogniEsnce," which is a fine Of not
more than 5000 or imprisonment for more than
seven years.
single one, though 1t had been returned against
all the others, which was very singular practice.
He also said that only one indictment could be
found for one ofense; that no person could be
subject to more than one Indictment or be put in
jeopardy twice for the same offense or subject to
more than one Indictment; but one Information
A defendant could be punished for two crimes
growing out OF the same oftense, but one crime
could not be divided and prosecuted in parts. Mr..
Cook quoted from numerous authorities TO sub
staDtiate his views. 1t was for the Judge to de-
eide as TO the time for quashing an Indictment in
q measure, but It ought to be done before the case
goes to the Jury. When two or more indIct-
ments are found upon the same subjectmatter,
tried upon the one selected by him. To sustain
this he quoted from some English authorities
He would ask If the prosecution had any author-
fly for carrying three indictments for one ofense
He knew this was the time for reform, but would
like to know If this was reform.
Mr.. Wells, the District attorney, followed next.
He said he never heard OF q case where the prose-
eution had TO elect which two or more OF the in
dictments q defendant should be tried upon: that
there WAS no parallel TO such motion; that 7Ir.
Cook was wrong when he supposed the offense
had been so cut up that there was more than one
count in this indictment. In Bishops Criminal
charges different ofense. A man could be tried
fortWo ohenses upon one indict ment (auoting from
BISHOPS common Law. II this was the case as
more than one. In regard TO double charges,
there was o remarkable case on the records OF
tSs viz STEALING i've Articles
Of Benton and Miles, the safe BURGLARS there the
ten indictments against the same party for rob-
In bae fdaDf IL nm fha sam
ical night
Mr.: RIDDLE followed Governor Wells, saying
be tried for three different otfenses committed at
Mr.. stanton said that giving false bail was the
be required to plead to one Indictment oniy. 40
that the other parties, when called could plead n
Mr.. wells said The parties could be triad unon
one indictment Of conspiracy, one Of felony and
one as accessory after the fact; the guilt Of the
from several authorities to sustain his viess1
Mr.. Merrick said that the motion was that the
Government elect which one Of the three tndJ~,,
ments they were TO plead. He asked thet thsv
be required to plead to but one indIctmsyt ana Il
hereafter they were called upon 20 plead 70
the others 1t could be done; thai the other two
SSeid moi g aS1s away EIs y shsIs pleading e
or punished twice for the same offense, (quoting
legal authorities To- sueJstantiate this.) A right
must De shown % exit Of right TO try ? criminal
be tried. '-'Oi' ''--N WV y - -
Judge MAC Arthur said that the application
was AZ tpJ discretion Of the court, and the
motlon was overruled. He would give the coun-
I teI NJ benefit Of any change or any) in his
DIR. Riddle said that the legality Of the grand
jury would be challenged BY counsel for the de-
tense.
Mr.. Merriek said that he would put in special
pleas that the indictments charged the same
ofeuse.
Mr.. Cook filed plea IN abatement In the case
OF Mr.. Evans, challenging the legality OF the
drawing Of the grand jury; also fled like pleas
In other cases. -
pleag IN the cases Of Fisher and Leighton. n
Mp Wells said he would nle demurrer.
Judge Macarthur said be could hear nothing
until Monday, but he would give the prosecution
until wednesday for that purpose.
A further hearing Of these cases, and also Of
the S47o0o Treasury robbery, ives then set for TO-