, 1876-03-29

employe7 And thsn Ford, wr!gsled ont Of the
question 10 70 vhother ho had sostLied to bis
ton Briggs and Or. flibbs, losevor. and other
reputable wiGnesses, hnd proved that Ford was
asked II l,o or his house had boom guilty OF it.
iegulartica, and llo aworo th0y Ind not beon.
that 1lapp hnd accumulated too much property;
that therefore .,o Ind made money loo fast and
must have ssofon 1t and therefore rahltnan
and Hush mado crooked w,|sky.
WHERE wA8 THE CONNECTION
botuoon those thinss7 lsapp llasl boon indus.
honest work, and II WAS no wonder Tint ho had
accumulated something. Ills testimony Was
bnFno out In orcryotn!1 by That Of tho tchn1bcrs.
aho wero corsa'!v froo from chargrs Of detEaud-
Ing tho Government
Recurring to the testimony Of Mr. Ford, 1fr.
Stanford ronhrkel that ths Bfngulariy cool wiz
intlta-tnbbor pac'agos and yet nc afterwards ad-
nlltte1 that his hooks liad becn destroyed for
The parroHo Of preventing tho Government from
tracing his goods to their destination, and front
aercrtAiping how tho stamps differed from tho
ssnbe. Did not that look AZ If 10 know all
Rbuut indin~subbor packngeA7
After showing tho Government books OF tho
Alcohol Works to tho 1ury. and commenting on
kept, trsd nftor noting tho fact tia. tloY soro
all there from 197t and not destroyed tliso those
OF loelle Il junkcr and the rest. NIr. STAFFORD
eatd l,e vonld not consume further time, but
N1Ht1l adk Inc July III !lFodtlEhte 10 tHe oottph'
1horo llad beon gaod deal Of loose declatua-
tion Iudulgcd In as Tho opening Of tho Govern
Mont'a caso, which did not appear to be addressed
to him {ats. stanfortD personally, nor 10 tito
case, md, therefore. l'o did not caro- to mcltllo
with tt.
T4o Court thcn eignincd willingness to hear
A{t. Storrs a9gun bis law point In rcforonco to
tho qneHtion Of
rNorn1EIoNsnir III THE CHICAGO ALCOHOL wonKs.
Mr.. stor1s began by Ra;ihg that tho Bisnil!-
chnco Of tho question OF tho ownership Of II,
property aeoniod to have been miAcoustruoi by
connsol Tho point WIZ that Rush and palltmen
could not DO tr!cd and that the Alcohol Works
WAS tic rosponHtb1o party. That WAS not tho
proposition ut ALL Tho point WAS that tllero waB
q variance, Which seemed to l,o fatal. betNoon
correspond with tho hyermeilt. 1t did not:
Furk11or, whether tho ayerment was mAtcriAl
or not III It waH one deBotiptivo In It's clnrac-
tor, affecting and relating 10 tho identity of tho
olFcnso charged. although tho plcador might
have omitted 1t altogether. yot II lc had inscrted
it IN hts p1en a varlnnce botween tho description
and tho proof was fatal to tho in1dctmcnt. The
ayornont was that tho distillory and tho waEe-
house woro those OF Platinum aud llush. which WAS
descriptive Of tho identity Of tho place. aud
two variance between ths avctmont and
to % anything. II nhovod tiat tho titio
to this distilIery vns In tho Chicago Alcohol
Works. ItHlado no difference who tho stock
holders wero.. Tho indictment. moreover, did
not assert that a slueso barrel Of crooked wlis-
ky over loft pahlmnns Il Ilush's D.stii!oIy, but
It did aeaert Tint tl1!g was tho caee With tho CHI
cago Alcohol Works. Ntr. atorrs wont to tho
Law books for hsa authority aud prosecuted quite
n formidable arEay OF evidence In support Of hls
position. This matter WIS considerably olabo-
ratod, and whom Alr. btorrs had concluded Judge
Blolgett aslod for the indictment and announced
al adjournment till 10 o'clock this morning.