, 1876-02-06
WHISKY.
Conclusion Of the Arguments
in the Cochran Case.
fae Jury Return a Verdict In Favor
Of the Government.
pszce Around the Custom-House--
This Weeks Prospects.
list|ih,sd that tile Second Batch Of Distil"
ltrs Till Plead Guilty.
arrival Of Gen. Babcock and His Friends
in St. Louis.
extraordinary Arrangements BE.
ing Made for the Trial.
snh,tauce Of an Interview with the
General at His Hotel.
snh.tance Of an Interview with the
General at His Hotel.
lMotion Entered for Mem Trial in the
Mckee Case.
CHICAGO.
rorERAN'S DlS7iLLERY.

The Cochran disiltieIJ 1ot1eltufe "A5 cou
timed before Judge Dlodgett Yesterday morning
n, immediate defendants in tbs casa being
J.-oh and Eys Singer, and Jacob Weiniand, the
n,ciual owners Of the property.
Tha counsel fo7 the detense offered in evidence
deed OF IN undivided two-thirds Of tho dis:ii-
1.ry proparty from Jacob and Eve Singer te
Charles ], Singer, dated Feb. 10, 1874; also q
truss deed bearing the same date from Charles
7 Singer to Joseph G. Williamson given to 60.
nr, four promissorr notes Of g, 600, duo in one.
.va md three years. as part payment on the
n,opetty; also deed from Jacob Weinland to
Charles Welnland for an undivided oue-third OF
tie dstillery property. bes1ing date Doc 8, 1874.
The trial ther proceeded by the swearing OF
Leonard stspp Is interpreter, and the s1Amina-
ton Of
HES. EVA SINGER.
ehe denied any knowledge Of ever having given
con.ent to ha7ing the place rua ~ disiliezy,
either By Cochran or any one else.
BefoSe proceeding farther WITH the witness,
Joseph G. williamson. one OF the parties III
d:cted With Cochran and Hutch.ns. was recall
ed to tho stand. He denied ever having told
Mr., Cunning, attorney for the Singers, that Mrs.
Singer had ever refused to converse with him On
business matters without an interpreter Ho
had, however, told h1r. Cunning that Mrs.
Singer claimed she had ne1er given her consent
to the dstille;y being pisccd upon the premises,
uhile be, Williamson claimed eho did give such
consent and the only reason upon which he
could base the difference W2s that ahe had mis-
understood NEo-
Iii. Cunning then offered to file schedule OF
personal property in the distillery. which he
1ri+hed to show IVES the property OF Mrs. Singer
previous to the time Of the running Of the dis
tiaery by Cochran, hoping to aaFe this property
from the general confscatlon by the Govern
ment- M1. Boute}i. attorney for the prosccu-
ton, objected. but finally the claim Was Allowed
t. be placed On file.
Among thu articles mentioned in the schedule
Ets quantity Of copper pipe. such as is used
fot distllling pu1poses, which Mrs. Singer
17ened had been used by her 500 when he ran
tho disille1y. and the rest WAS chiefly the furni-
ture OF 4 house which ahe occupied PREVIOUS to
the great fire Of 1871.
O1 cross-ex auinat atioa Of HRS. Singer she
s:a.ea that she was Al years OF age. and had
been in this country for nineteen years. At
home she always spoke German, both to her
husband and to her children. She thought sho
knew enough English to speak without an inter-
preter, xud he was accordingly dispensed NTH.
To the questions then put to her she remained
eient. until tho Court called her to time and
Threatened to punish her If abs stlll remained
hllent. In the evidence that followed it WAS
distillesy On tho North Branch, and had been IN
tho business Of and on for years.
DEPUTY COLLECTOR Il. L. Pl1MPIoH
Wa then recalled. When he seized the diBtillery
he was accompanied by Thomas Lynch, 4 prac-
tical d1stiller, aud they found nothing except
what might presumably belong to tho distillery.
The copper pipe appeared to have been ia use,
Gud quantity of cattle-chains we're found
stowed away under the cisterns. This closed ths
case for both sides.
Tho Court then decided that the corn owned
By Robert G. Stevens could not he considered as
belonging to the distlils1y, 8nd consequently
vas entirely outside the control Of the Govern
zneot authorities. Therefore the Court ordered
it given back to the over
Judge Doolt!le remarked that
Nn- RUNTAN
he'd not been present in Court during the day,
nor had be filed any claim ~ to the mechanics
lien which he testified to holding on the pra1i-
Gus day.
The Court decided thst this phase Of the case
had nothing to do With the jury and as soon as
Ar. Runyan presented his claim he would give
oectelon. The defense we're instructed to pro-
ceed with tho closing arguments.
- O'Clock the Court interrupted Mr.. Cum
n'ogs argument and adjourned for one hour.
Psevious to adjourning. however. he called the
co11scis attention to tho fact that Williamson
VAS the legal owner Of tho distallerv premises,
1aasmueh as 10 had given four ptonigsory notes
% Charles ]. Singer. Is called Tor by tho trust
deea, bearing dzt5 Feb. TO- 1874. This would
aeen to thsow out Of tho case all but Williamson
"a 1ad Gla1es J. Singer, tho holders OF tha notes.
1ae Court advised tho counsel to take this view
q the case ard argue it, Is 1t seemed to hin The
tssA point
Court convened 4. o'clock Tho first CASES /
- % diapo5ed Of were those Of Edward Clan |
ees; c9n'ie:td of altering . rost-oilce order,
aaa Joan Stedmxn, convicted Of passing = co1n- |
tettelt bill. Judge Blodsctt was disposed to |
oeai kindly With both boys en- account OF their !
yoatn and for tho reason that they |
nsa previously borno good characters. !
.1 ue sentenced Clancy to ono year in the pcn.-
Lao understanding that he waa to be retained in
to toe custody of the Marshal at the County Jail |
!of tGectr days. Some Ut his friends are max /
.aS efforts to secure hia pardon, and it is c1- !!
leeted that within that time they may have &C.
i5orsEs2ed 5u that object: In di=mie=ing clanee:,
ioE us future guid1uce. It's kindncs5 seemed to
te :! p-cciaed.
!cho S;cdmau, in consideration OF his youth |
s soo pa:t good character, WAS released on his
W w fecognizauce, tho Court taking the 1esnou-
r!.y a!o.llaty Of subscribing sentence This was done
: S'sa the understanding that II the youth bo- !
~: a:'eo himself tue affair would end here Other-
~ he would be liab!o TO be Eeos for by the
cua1h ssx Stedman thought the warning woEld be
ssaocient to teach MIN tue propresT OF behaving
- AZ t0c 1IIure. alh Ea16uIo ~oAo fAeo
elt Aid were cye-;oyed q. their sons release.
:. , TIE AnGUNESIs
"a "a me Cochran caeo we1o then commenced ar.
ccnn'ng making tho first speech. One OF his
po'a'a ,s WAS that it was not to bo wondered al
.aes crooked whisky Was produced. The next
ont "as the elaboration Of tho idea that tho
aisslllers did not havo the consent OF any Of tho
Fsfues IN writing, allowing them TO use the
s1hemiscs 1or distillery purposes except tnat OF
!, Ihat'cs J. Singer and Charles Wein1aud. It Vas
80 !; mnde to appear that Cochran was NOT at
oe dstllley when it uss seized, that be knew
:eshiug about any crookcdness, and that, IT
acre vas anything wrong, it must have been
@ace BY a subordinate, for which he Was not
ssponslble- The Revenue Department Was
,sattv censured tor allowing tho dihtille1y 10
IN siter notice had been given that ihoro were
Mechanics lcrs Oh the property Ir. Cunning
aosed With eome animadsc1sious upon what Lie
esned the pernocut'nG spirit Of tho GoVezn-
Ient. Evidence was offered which had no real
earring On the case, and it VAS enough nowA-
~ t. Prejudice the Qatsex nth the jury II 1t