The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-11-17
Read Navra's invitation to the China Palace
CARR's SECOND TRIAL.

| F1ehU nay III INC superior SfIHnlnHI GOnri
| Yesterday morning the chamber of the supe.
'ior Criminal Court was crowded with curiosity
| seekers, who resorted thither to listen 10 The
second trial Of Mortimer Carr for uttering az
true forged bill Of lading. The case yesterday
was based upon the forged bill of lading for SOC
bales of cotton alleged TO have been shipped on
the Norwegian bark Runeberg.
After the court had been duly opened Carr was
called to the bar looking much fresher and more
relieved than he did on the occasion OF the first
trial. Chas. II. Nuremberg, Esq, and O. s. Rice,
Esq, represented the prisoner. while the States
case was in the hands Of Attorney General Ogden.
Assistant Attorney General Egan and II. @. Cas-
tellanos, ESQ.
When the last OF the witnesses had been called
somewhat to the surprise OF the State the defense
filed plea in bar Of autrefots acquh. This plea
was made upon the ground that the charge in the
present indictment and the matter and things
therein set forth were similar to those passed
upon by the jury on the first trial, and on which
there was verdict Of acquittal. aud the prayer
was for the discharge of the prisoner.
After the reading of the plea the State asked for
time to prepare Its replication to the same, and
Judge Whitaker granted half an hour.
At noon Attorney General Ogden read his
replication, ayerrng that the accused was not &C.
quilted on the indictment now before the court,
and that the offepse therein charged TO have
been committed is not the same identical offsnse
mentioned in tho first Indictment.
When he bad finished, Mr.. Gutenberg moved
the court that the issue Of fact as to whether
the offense about to be tried was covered by the
first indictment or not be left TO jury, accord
ing to the practice ut common law.
Attorney General Ogden, In an argument
strenuously objected to this, and said that this
| nua tior t,1pr hal IN tka
the two indictments were In the record and the
judge could compare them and
SEE FOR HIMSELF.
Judge Whitaker stated that the authorities
were against the position OF the Attorney Gen.
eral, as Archibald and other text writer's enunci-
should be left to jury. 1t was one Of fact. not
OF law. He therefore ordered the jury to be
called to the book.
Mr.. Castellanos asked the Judge whether the
jury about to be impanelled would simply try the
issue involved in the plea dutrefois acguit or
whether they would also try the case on it's
merits.
Mr.. Gutenberg replied that the only verdict
this jury could render would be for against the
plea. The jurors were then called, and % the
dered.
EVENING SESSION.
At o'clock the work of securing Jury was
continued, and at the following were sworn In
to try the plea: L. y. Plauche, u. LabuZan, A.
Morel, A. q. Merkel, P. Lamia. John 4. Rodd,
W. R. Bonnafon, F. Hagan, L. Blum, O. Wirth,
A. Stack and N. Kuntz.
The only witness introduced was Mr.. T. He'll
man, who testified as to the identity of Carr and
the fact that the bill of lading he now charged
with uttering was delivered at the same time as
the one on which he had been acquitted.
Mr.. Nuremberg then opened as plaintiff in plea
and read
NUMEROUS AUTHORITIES
going to show that where the u:terance Of two
forged bills was committed at the same time an
ton.
He was followed by Assistant Attorney General
Egan, who combatted this proposition and
claimed that the two forged bills of lading being
for different vessels and for different quantity
of cotton, and alleged to have been signed by
different parties, it did not constitute the ofsnse
for which the prisoner had been tried.
81. @. Castellanos, Esq, for the State followed
in clear, concise and able argument, in which,
by apt illustration and clear proposition,
HE SOUGHT TO SHOW
the diff renee between the charge of uttering
forged bill of lading for $50 bales shipped the
bark Flora and 500 bales shipped on the bark
Runeberg. Carr had been acquitted as to the
Flora, bnt the case of the Runeberg was an en-
tirely different case.
Attorney General Ogden spoke afterwards in q
short, telling speech, and was followed by G. s.
Rice Esq, for the defense, who made resume
OF the arguments already presented, and claimed
that the law was plain when the usteranee of two
forged papers at one time was charged IN two in
dictmerts an AcauittaI in one would be bsr To
further prQeecusio AT the yequet OF the At.