Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-07-08
POLICE CoURr-Jud0e Shell


To-day, James Ryan was sent down for
vagrancy. VIM. Smith forfeited collaGe rails
esH6 payn ns and Emily Lee, loud; s.
forfeited. John Glendinger same. Alfred
May, bathing in the Potomac at unlawful
hours; 81. Samuel Washington, same
chargei -. Thomas Washington, same; So.
VIM. Wheeler and Thomas Howard, loud;
50 each.
THE o'BRIEN. GRANT SHOOTING CASE.
VIM. OBrlen, who shot VIM. Grant on the
morning OF the ith instant, was brought out
OF jail this morning, and his counsel, Mr..
Frank Gloss, offered 81 200 bonds through the
mother of defendant, stating that he had a
out of danger, which he produced. some
questions as TO the sufficiency of the bond
ohered was raised by Mr.. Birney for the gov.
eminent. and the court reserved his judg-
ment: OBrien was subsequently, admitted
TO bail, his father and mother being his sure
ties.
Jerry Johnson, larceny of a silver watch
from Henry Jackson; having been before
convicted of petit larceny, and this being a
charge OF second offense, his counsel waived
an examination, and the case was sent to the
grand jury. Linda Guinand, larceny OF three
ears of corn worth ten cents; 81. Albert
Mack, assault on Albert Harris-commop
assault; s5. Eliza Bowie, threats against
peace Samuel Carroll, larceny of horse,
wagon and harness worth 1915, belonging To
Strouse Brother; grand jury bonds 81 0OO
A SERIOUS CHARGE DISMISSED.
James c. Haviland, charged with forging
a note for 800. 25, In the name OF w. A. Far.
ley, and purporting to be Endorsed by Joseph
r. Cake, with intent to defraud Fred. A,
Koone3, esq, real estate agent, who testi-
ned that in June last Havtland, with another
man, came TO his office and represented that
he was well acquainted with Farley, that be
wanted TO get money advanced on his nav as
clerk In the government department. Wit
ness declined at drst to entertain the prop
osition OF advancing him money, but on the
representation of defendant and this stranger
That they could get Col. Cake to indorse his
note, he let him have the money. He pro-
duced the note before the court. He subse-
quently ascertained IL to be q forgery after
putting 1T into bank for collection. On
cross, examination 1t appeared that Mr.
,HavlIand was not present when Mr.. Far
note, and knew nothing further of the
Transaction than to recommend Far
ley 10 Koones as q man OF intaeritv
MI Men alley, who has q desk in the ON ce
OF MI. koones, corrOborated the statement
OF MT; K9onss as to hearing Haviiand
clerk In the Second Auditors ONCE, testiSs3
that he knew nothing whatever OF the trans
action, and never saw the note. A Witness
testified that the signature Of Mr.. Cake was
q forgery-Mr. Cake being absent at Cane
May. Counsel for defence made Q short
statement that Mr.. Haviland happened bv
accident to be present when this man repre;
eenting himself to be- Farley entered Mr..
koones' office, and incidentally spoke in
favor OF Farley, knowing him in the Treas
ury department.. Several witnesses were
introduced 70 prove the good character of
defendant. The court stated that the mere
fact that Mr.. HaviIand introduced this man
TO Mr.. Koones and then LEFT the transaction
was no evidence OF any criminal intent. and
dismissed the case. Mr., T, +, MIlIer an
peared foy defendant,