National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-03-09
FoRrYsEyES THOUSAND.
Trial Of 3. B. Hsll.ck for the Robbery
n. AZ h EaRa.


The case of b. 3. Hallsek came up In the
Criminal Court yesterday. 10 the absence Of
Justice Macarthur, who is couhnet to his bed
by serious Illness, Justice DIN presided. The
following persons were sworn In as jurors:
Messrs Samuel V. Noyes, James Foy, Henry
W. Lee, David Jackson, ]. T. Buckley, Benjamin
Miller, Samuel Queen, Robert Goldman, i. G.
Coombs, James A. Butler, J. II. Richardson and
VIM. Tilley.
The defendant is charged with having ab-
stracted $I7,e97.G5 from the Treasury on June 2,
1875.
Mrs. Hslleck appeared in court with her hus-
band, and seemed much affected by the pro-
eeedings.
District Attorney Wells announced that the
Government had four indictments against the
accused. The first was an Indictment for the
larceny of the sum of money above stated; the
second charged him with the embezzlement of
the same, and the third contained four counts
one of larceny; the second with receiving the
money, knowing It to be stolen; the third with
embezzl'ng the same, and the fourth with re.
have been embezzled. Heretofore motions had
been made to quash the first two indictments,
Hehkle then moved to quash the third indict-
nent, which contained the four counts above re-
ferIed to.
any csptieus opposition. He argued that only
one indictment could be tried at one and the
same time, and ne WO0lQ lnterpOSe q plea IN OAR.
There was a continuation Of the crimes that could
not be tried in one Indictment. He here cited
authorities ut great length, and demonstrated to
the satisfaction of those in attendance that he
had devoted much time and study to the case
He held that the grand jury could not find In
diotments day after day, id iHfnituH, and thus
In conclusion he held that embszzlement and
larceny could not be joined. The two words were
the other. and therefore they cannot be tried in
the same Indictment. He therefore requested his
Honor to direct that the District Attorney
SELECT WHICH INDICTMENT
the prisoner should be tried upon
Judge J. NJ. Wilson, Assistant District Attorney
replied at length, and the sallies of wit which
ensued between himself sud Gen. Henkle were
attendance, as we'll as the rabbie who occupied
every spare space in the court room.
Judge Wilson held that there could not be
charged In the same Indictment perjury and for.
gerry, for they were really dissimfIar ofenses but
the charges Of larceny and em6sZZlement were
capable Of being Joined IN the same Indictment.
took the ground he did in this particular. He
wished TO show that If the prisoser should be
on the other II should be found that the accused
could not be convicted Of embeZZlement, the op-
posing counsel holds that he could not be tried on
the charge of larceny, or rice UerSd. Judge Will
son went on to read authorities to show that one
or moro indictments could be found against the
after another in such a case could be found. In
ether words, the psudency Of one indictment was
no bar to the finding Of another ib5i"tEsnti one is
not an abatement to another. If the party is
found suilty Of one otfense he be punished for
that offense only; but the two charges enables the
Government to prevent him from escaping pun
ishment If either one or both counts held good on
trial.
The court then, a: p. N, took a recsss for
fifteen minutes.
AFTER RECESS
the court granted an order to consolidate; to
which ruling Gen. Henkle noted an exception.
He then submitted q motion TO QuRsh the indict-
ments and the counts in them, which charge the
defendant with embezZlement; which motion the
court overruled.
District Attorney Wells then made an OPEN
ing address to the jury, stating the points witch
he expected to prove; how the accused had de.
lvered the money to Gilman; who was to "shove''
It for him, dividing with him. He followed OFT
man and Halleck in their trips to New York
Brooklyn, Saratoga and other places, where they
went to convert the $500 notes into bills of a
smaller denomination.
At the conclusion Of his able address the court
adjourned until 10 a. to-day, the Jury being in
st(ysted to converse with no one upon the merits
OF tie case.