, 1876-04-09
f1cKee:s Counsel Raise a Successful
Quibble and Thus Eyade Sen.
tence.
Avery Called for Sentence, but
Fails to Put in an Appear
ance.
He Is, However, Gathered In by the
Marshal at Washington, and Sent
to Jail
ST. LOUIS.
MACUlRE.
JrnCNF1~F INT

ST. LOUIS.
MAculRE.
JUDGMENT DEL,
8pscn Dssp6teh to IAe caaea0u 1szbune.
ST. Loum, April 8.-Ihe crowd m the United
States Courtroom this morning Was as great az
On any occasion during the Babcock trial
Judges Dillon and Treat look their eeata On the
bench 1t 10 o'clock, but It was noon before Judge
Dillon announced that he was prepared to an-
bounce the opinion Of the Court in the case OF
ex-Collector Con Mcguire He frat read the
section under which Mr. Mcguire Ind been in
dicted. stating that the connts 10 which
be had pleaded guilty we're found under
the ninth clause thereof, which rnlates
to failure on the part Of an officer
to report knowledge OF frauds to his next supe-
rior oface1, and to the Commissioner ct Inter-
nal Berenue- The defendant had entered g
general plea Of guilty. and the question vas
whether, as the case stood upon the records,
thers we're five separate and distinct ddeusea
requiring fire separate knd distinct or cumnla~
tire judgments, or whether there was
oSLI ONE oFFEssE,
requiring eingle Judgment. This uas very
important question, and the Court had desired
to hexr it fully argued; but, as Mr.. Mcguire hnd
instructed his counsel to make no argument, and
II COZ Dyer and Maj. Eaton, lacking
the stimulus which An opposition giyes. also
declined to make any argument, but contented
themselves With referring to Wha1ton'a Criminal
lev, The Court Was left without Light 90 far ~
this case was concerned There was one pro-
vfaion OF the statues section No. 1024, which
seemed to haye
MATERIAL BEARING
On the question under consideration. This seo-
ton provided that, in cases where there we're
several charges against aperson for tho aamo
net Or transaction, or for two or more
acts or transactions intimately connected.
or for two or more Of the aame
class Of offenses. these charges may be properly
Joined in an indictment containing several
counts. and the court may make an order for
such consolidation Aside from this it would
not Seem competeut, according to tho principles
OF common Law, to unite several offences in Que
indictment, and to pass sentences On each.
Originally the common law prohibited the plac-
ing Of more than one count setting forth dis
tinct onease in an indictment, but afterwards it
became the custom to set forth the same
oneuse in several counts in order to provide
against ''var1ance"; 80, while tha language
OF the counts might seem to indicate several Of
fenses, but one ofense WIS represented BY
them all This matter nad been
CONSIDERABLY COMPLICATED
bit there ia nd nroyision in the Federni nv
retas;ye to the snbfact which in hrosder than
the one referred TO above, which authorizes the
introduction Of several charges into al indict-
transsction or onIy offences beionginr to fha
name cIass. The question is, then. xhether on
a nlsa Of euiity. corering fYe connta.
has the Court fva offenses before it
ertendnd arpument or, the no1nt. and in yiew of
HE fact thsf the pressure Of business proyented
Dersnnsl exs1nination aud research on tha usrt
nf the Judges. the Court mad conoluded to reet
itn decision mon the ouIy precadent in the Fed
er.j courts xh,rh had heen called to ita atten-
f;nn The whoia question xsa hrorvht hafora
the Conrr in he Csc OF Tweed. which WA for
1nsl1v Hasse5 11non in the Cont ri Anneais
T,a ji1Id;et IH noenr so.;nst Tvsed ennts;nea ok
1an,ts nv ~ 1eisdsns.nn,a and ha hs;n~ oen ~
~,tad tha f.o1rt
.~SnrpTn o7,m.,7rz. ,,7na.rr~r
Tint "a r. a.v nsssed INDIGNANT m each connt
snAt u " n4s. paossu Jausneas W e.su souna' I
Testn-,. n;.t~;nt ~ 1y;ssonE Iha~a r.,t 49,
<nSsa.ad ,.1,ssI tt.s. sa1,a .+a+.as ~. ;,;st "
~a.-.t oorts,n;no f;ftv comma IL ~. cor~;.ta5
- s.,ss,-,:st,ra an{.oos ~, nrrrn,naad -
~ T~e.d csss ths mstter w,s t.tan hefora +ha
Gorr ~ xrres,a md +b;a nn;nt ~. ro7,sd iI
SONS Of the best talent Of tbs Nav YORK Raj,
~ n.ds Tha .,[s,s;raopa n1E ~ ~ @
Co111t xas that the nrncaadinp n the
iower conrt could noz ha enstained.
ii. or;n1cn Was yery elaborate, and oontsined
rafsranca. In naarlv all tha Enr1sh and Amevi
- s.,ttoI1;as 1nong e+hsr c.eaz ,hena;,
cau ao.uoi..1ee @ 9s oSas o9A ~a7e' 'a''eu
cited Was oue ~ntcn |
Is ENTITLED 10 REFLECT Axp CONSIDERATION,
being the only one in the Federal Courts where |
IN the question Was presented. The defendant,
n r1en named 4lhr, WIS convicted .7nner an i1-
~f,r+nant - ~ I'D and a n,otion wse rnada
~ saatsna - - .o,+ ~ Co-,-+ - hafJ 4h,
matter unoer 4dy1soment I'LL fhe next term, and
then oveH1lod tbs motion, decltunR that 5udg-
1he Court held that the acs uermitt1ng
fhe {oiuine Of eeversi offanaes in nne iniict- |
.7,.pt 5;1 Mt rb.nra tLa .oo.soon 1sw .e;th ~
111 ~. ~ ~ saAoso ea9 Soanoo 1 -" "1sa .st
eseooe so 5uog.nentA ma tnese1ote tho aose1n-
neo1 F2a en<aued 20 ous singie Judgment.
Judge Dillon said that on this pre- cedeDt HIM |
esH aud Judge Treat had determined to rest |
thar pppipp until such time as they shouid be |
e&tafed that it VAS WRONG, Judge Diilon then |
sssad IL snrth;np 1aoTe 8aa to rs a,;3 j.; henst
- IL 1f.rn;-n &c., .an+s,n, 80 -.a -na..s1 -