, 1876-03-25
MILWAUKEE,.

MIL HHONECa
All IMPORTANT pyglsloS REGARDING 1NpIuZArNxB.
Sptetci U,spateh to 1n< Chtedao Ir7buns.
MILWAUKEE, March a4.-The decision Of judge
Dycr upoa tho motion to quash tho Indictment
against Jacob Nunaemncher finally diapoaes OF
tho objection in tho whisky prosecutions that
uulcr tho indictments In these casoa but
single sct prohibited by law cau bo charged OF
proved. Tho effect OF tho judgment overulsng
tho oueston is to substantially wldcu tho scope
OF tho testimony admissible til all tho caass aud
by 80 much to enable the prosecution to got tho
facts Ia their entirety before jury. The FrJnnd
Of the demurrer WAs thai the first count or tno
Indictment charged that tho defendant, Nunna-
machor, on tho 18th OF December, 1874 did re-
move and did aid and a1es In tho removal OF
$500 gallons Of spirits On which tux was unpaid
from tho distil!ery to = warehouse. and ata con-
ccuI and aid IN tho conccaIstens OF sno eame.
Tho second count charges TINT on December II,
1874. 600 gal}ona OF spirits wore so removed
and cnncealod. The ground Of the demurrer WAS
in tho lecal phraso ''lup!ic'ty," Il Or that moro
than nuH nsfnrta uaa Charged IN tho Indictment,
which Nns elnborately argued. In announcing bis
tlocison Judge Dyer, aftor citing Bee. 32b OF
the United Bkntoa Statutes, upon which tho In
dlctrnont waa found, eaid ~.
Tho statute II! question contains two GENERAL d.
plscc ptsr than tho iatieyy warehouse provided hy
iaw or tho conceAnpnt of splrita 30 removed 2nd
tho zoura3 Of distilled aprss from a!attflory-HAro.
house or otAar warehouse authorized by law, In any
auucr other than Is provided by law, Or the coucsa
mcnt OF spirits 10 removed.
Ii Ia general Elllb that connt Ia an Indictment
which charges two dIsuct, independent onensre IL
bad aud shUu bc 1uashed ou motion. mil as
tho result Of ny examination Of aha numerous casos
uhro tho p.ncpe hks been aAforced TINT Tho tHrvail
Ing festure Of theae ts that ta oqon1ca charged
M Tho game court were either inherrutly repugnant OF
nd distinct Tint thor could mt bo construed different
stages in ons tranhactiun iusosyo1 different pun
tatn,et1ts Theru Ia class Of cases where, nlthongh
o1cpaea arpcAE by tie uec Of tho dislunoetre in
statutes docnEn9 the oenRea 10 bo disttnct aud sc
rats it Ia nevertheless held that they o0Dsdtuto In
oeot but oGense, and may TO stated IN oue count
I'm support OF which proposition nutnerons auttoEi-
/ ties wore citodl -
procedurv 4od} says; III statute declares ,hat
10 doing Of ihs or TINT Or tho ,,,,,1;. ether
mens Which il SPECIFICS, plalu,y. = man
may incur thc peusity by doing my u tho three
th!usB And. by doing tho three things, At dlGoren
tpes nn "a sepaFas tTansae&uass 10 hcura tho peia
| atty three t!tnts and threo t!inea he may 10 pun
fshed" but suppose nstead he loea tho thrte thngs
at ouce md Faaxaetto, tho doctrine appears
b that he incra tho Ianalty but once btnco Tho q
| fcusp may bo committed In d1HnFent Ways u!snn
tlsled IN thts statute from ono another by tho dis
fuucttye committed BY combining more than o,1s,
al Lhf trdys fn Transaction, m indictment ma.
Ia angle count charge the dcfondRnt With ~ ti
acta using Tia conjuuct7a HRnl, n when tho statut
enlployx tho distinctive or," aud upon htA 8ruunt
| lie objection ID oycrEulod