New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-30
spirits distilled ct Eehrenbach's distillery,
and thkttnO connect Him with Jkge CON

spirits distilled ct Fehrenbach's distillery
and thksth0 connect Him Win tHsV con
| spiracy.
If you are satisfied upon the evidence
that the conspiracy charged in the indict
ment actually existed, and that tho over
acts or any ono of them is also shown, thel
you should take the case of each one of th,
defendants on trial and inquire whether
they are shown to have been concerned il
the conspiracy. If there was conspiracy
OF which You can take notice, some one al
least of the defendants must have been in it
Consider the testimony 80 far as it relates
to Fehrenbach. Was he in the conspiracy!
II you are fully Satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that he was. find him guilty. If the
evidence does not fully satisfy you, find
him not guilty. Take in any order you
please and consider separately the cases Of
karstendiek, Beales, Bruce and William M
Todd. Are the facts established in this
case consistent with their innocence of the
charge OF conspiracy mads in the indict-
ment! If they are, acquit them; if they
are not, find them guilty.
Consider the case of McWhirter.
This distillery was, as it ia claimed,
assigned to him to overlook. The
evidence, it is claimed, shows that
it was his duty to watch its operations, and
to report any irregularities and violations
of the law. Are you satisfied from the
proof that he willfully neglected his duty
for the purpose of aiding the frauds upon
the revenue of the governments If you
duty plainly imposed by the law and the
natural result OF this neglect was to facili-
tate the preparation of the frauds upon the
revenue, as charged in the indictment. you
would be justified in finding that he also
ives q part of the conspiracy. But if he
did not neglect any duty required OF him
by the law, or if his neglect was not willful
and did not indicate clearly corrupt pur-
pose, or was the result of the numerous
other duties required of him, so that it was
not possible for him to discharge the duties
required of him in relation to this distillery.
Did he know that the distillery was Oper-
ated in violation Of the law, or did he will
fully shut his eyes to the facts before him,
IN order that the fraud might be consul
mated! If he did his duty, or in failing to
do it had no corrupt purposes, acquit him;
but if you tind that his neglect was willtul
and corrupt, that the purpose of his neg
lect was to aid the frauds on the revenue,
you must return him guilty.
Charles w. Wills, it is claimed by the
prosecution, was the acting collector during
the period of these alleged frauds. Inqu
what his duties demanded Of him, and were
they discharged SO far as this distillery was
concerned with reasonable diligence, or did
he willfully shut his eyes to facts before
him. and thereby purposely assist in the
preparation of the alleged frauds. and as
you shall decide these questions you will
find him innocent or guilty.
If you have been convinced of the con-
spiracy, and of the overt acts, or any one of
them, alleged in the Indictment, you will
then go over the case Of each one of
the defendants, and inquire whether his
completely in the conspiracy has been fully
shown, and your verdict will be guilty or
not guilty, as to each of the several defend
ants, according as you may tnd in each
ones case.
Superior DISTRICT Court.
State ex rel. John Kline ct al. vs.. E.
Pilsbury. Administrator of Finance.-Re-
lators are brokers; q part of their business
ia to paw license taxes Of 1876; they have
warrants and defendent has refused to
receive them. Rule to show cause May 4,
1876, issued.
Thomas Miles We. NJ Vondubonk.-Plain-
tiff, owner OF the Bismarck" leased it %
the defendant. who has always paid his
rent promptly; he alleges that the next
payment is due May |, and that defendant
has employed an auctiOneer to sell all the
movables April %. and prays that he be re-
Strdl0eO. 1nJuoCtlon Aseueu W oouO u
$500.
Superior Criminal Court.
State Vs. T. j. and Adolphe Newhouse.-
Murder. Killing john c. Costley, Feb
ruary l6, 1876, in the Union coffeehouse,
corner of Melpomene and Dryades streets.
Arguments finished.
second District Court.
SUGGESTIONS of George Schumacher, Jo-
seph Lehman and Bernard Sier opened.
The tutorship of Aiexandrine Savage is
asked