New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-29
THE WHISKY CAsEs.
Eighth Days Proceedipgs.

G18ntn Uoy0 FrOceed1DIQe
Major j. II. New finished his argumen,
On the preeentation of the case for the gov.
ernment about IL A. NJ.
General L. A. Sheldon then opened the
case tor the defense, going over the whole
of tho evidence and reviewing the testi-
mony Of each witness, and spoke over two
hours.
Hon. w. 81. Hunt followed. In his Open
ing he reviewed the law and practice in
cases of conspiracy, endeavoring to show
that the revenue law was contrary to the
principle of American law in such crimes
His argument was after v ard directed par
ticularly to showing that Mr.. Wills stood
before the jury without particle of testi-
mony against him. The survey he made
was before the sale to Fehrenbach;
and before the inception of the al
legged conspiracy. One witness, Thomas
Entwistle said he had seen Mr.. Wills in the
mash room once, but was contradicted by
Lands, who, he said, was present, Mr..
lends declaring he Had never seen Mr..
Wills till he was pointed out in the court
room. Thomas was also contradicted BY
]. E. w. Entwistle, who said he did not be-
lieve Mr.. Wills knew anything of the ille-
gal acts. aod who had testified that he had
told Mr.. Wills himself that every thing was
straight.
Mr.. Hunt closed with an eloquent appeal
for Paul Bruce, who, with his disadvan
tages, could not be expected to be familiar
with this most intricate law, which even
the district attorney had already found
himself ignorant of in one articular.
Mr.. j. d. Rouse followed Mr.. Hunt in Q
short argument for Mr.. McWhirter..
Mr.. w. r. Whitaker addressed the jury
on behalf of Mr.. Todd. He argued the law
was not violated by the possession of stamps
by the distiller, for which the government
had been paid, which could not be affixed
with the gauger's signature. which were
unsigned, which in that state weuld not
protect single barrel an instant, ahd'which
were worthless to the distiller. The only
other evidence was that during the time
accounts had not been kept by serial num-
bers. The regulation for this was n ot made
eAAA 0PAAA cos Ao'H UWCAVJ-C 0AlcI
the seizure. Mr.. Todd's accounts were kept
according to the custom by gallons of high |
wines and gallons of spirits, and by that |
rule. the only one then in force, they were
correct.
Hon. T. j. Semmes commenced the clos
ing argument for the defense by reading |
United States Rsvieed Statutes, section
544O, defining conspiracy. When it was to |
commit an offense made q crime by United |
States law. against any department, it |
made no difference whether the object was
attained or not; the district attorney was |
relieved from setting forth in the indict- |
ment the exact object. The Limitation here |
was five years. But where it was q con-
spiracy to commit an offense not made q /
crime by the statute, the conspiracy, in
this, to defrsud the revenue, It devolved on
the district attorney to set forth clearly the
object. The limitation was two years. Some
act must be committed, and he should
the proposition that if no act
could be shown to have been committed
after April z, 1874, then, even though the
still existed, the time had ex
pired. He said he would present the facts
to the jury this morning, promising not to
occupy more than an hours half.
Judge Woods stated to the jury that the
case would be finished today.