The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-03-23
THE COURTS.
The Great Whiskey Ring Suit
Brought to Sudden Close.
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.
Duties or Referees in Divorce
Proceedings
HOLDERS OF ERIE RAILWAY BONDS.

The case OF the United States against Messrs Boyd
Hill Wholesale liquor dealers Of this city. which
during very protracted trial attracted large
Of public attention, TO abrupt but not wholly
unexpected conclusion yesterday The defendants,
Francis o. Boyd and Edgar p. Hill, after the failure
the part OF the government to secure convictions
against alleged .whiskey Ring conspiraors' in Chi
cago and st. Louis commenced prosecution against
the defendants In this city. The principal witnesses
depended by the government 10 secure a con-
vction here were parties who had been convicted
Of whskey frauds West but pardonod
and brought here to testify AS reported
HERALD two questions vital the were presented
10 the Court by defendants counsenrst an exception
TO the jurisdiction Of the Court and second,
overt act Of conspiracy, charged had boen cstab
lished against the defendants These points were
ably argued by Generals Tracy and II. .. Burnett Tor
Boyd n Hill, and as ably and porsstently, IT not so
successfully, by Mr.. Roger n. Sherman the youthful
District Attorney whose single shoulders the
herculean task of proving the alleged conspiracy was
laid The questions this turning point in tho
were presented by defendants counsel at the opening
Of the court Wednesday morning. and argument
thereon closed only late O'Clock yesterday.
From Judge Blatchford's directions to the jury.
given below, it will be that the prosecution
utterly failed in establishing against the de-
brief reply TO Mr.. Sherman without leaving the bench
directing the jury to find verdict for the defendants
The result in this will finally determine the dis
position OF some dozen OF u smaller class of
w"'skey cases which have been long time pending
against wholesale liquor dealers In this city. Owing
10 the length OF zine consumed in the trial. the I'M
or'ant issues at stake and the bearing of the
inrther prosecutions upon similar charges the charge
and directions OF Judge Biatchtord to tho jury
elv IN full below
~ ua, well dispose OF the question now as my
srcat attention and interest to the different able
presentations the questions involved by couuse on
side. From the views take OF the case II is
hot necessary Tor me to go into all the views prc-
scented by counsel first address myself to The con
spracy count OF tho Indictment IL Is framed under
the statute which provides that when two per-
sons with intent to deiraud the United States, do
act 10 effect the object OF the conspiracy alleged all
tho parties to such conspiracy shall be liable to pen
atty Of not less than 81, 600 ana $40 900
anu TO Imprisonment for not more than two years.
Under this statute party to conspiracy be
vIcted Of the conspiracy alleged unless in addition
conspiracy within the statute-there also proof that
one or more OF the parties thereto has act
to effect tho object Of such conspiracy The conspiracy
count here alleges that the four named tho
irdictment-GOsen, Eastman, Boyd and Hill--dld in
the Southern district of New York. within the juris
dlcuon or TINS court Illegally combine, confederate
conspre and agree tOgether-that means, with each
other and with one Clarke and other parties the
jury unknown-to deiraud the United States OF
the internal revenue tax then and there
prescribed BY law to be collected distilled spir-
Its on each and every proof gallon OF distilled
spiritsto wit, 600 gallons This count goes on and
contains allegation in reference to an act done to
elect the object Of the conspiracy and AYERS that af
terward alter the entering the conspiracy and
pursuance thereof said William s. Gosen and Francis
Eastman did cause to be removed, and did remove
tiery warehouse, TO New York. within the jurisdlc-
ton OF the Court large quantity OF distilled spirits
Then II is alleged further aud In pursuance of
said conspiracy and In order to effect the object
removed and did remove from dis.illery
warehouse q large quantity Of distilled spirits
addition to tho proof OF the conspiracy, and assuming
that there proof to 90 the jury; that this aepa
ton to the act done in urherance of the conspiracy
must be substantially proved alleged, and that thus
has not been DONE giving the utmost effect the
dence 70 20 before tho jury; that the Court must
charge the jury that the evidence fails to show that
Golsen Eastman, or either OF them, removed or
caused 10 be removed spirits from any of three
dlslleries named, either Cooper's, Mersereau's or
do not doom 1t necessary TO say anything about the
other questions on the subject Of The alleged con-
spracy. am also clearly OF Opinion that under the
second and ourth counts evidence appears either
OF removal or Of the aiding and abetung IN the
moval Of any spirits, as alleged by these defendants
Boyd Il Hill, either OF them Tho second
count, alleges that they unlawully aided and
allotted IN the removal IRON distilcry In
Chicago OF large quantity OF distilled spirits or this
there evidence to to the jury that either Of
these defendants dd as alegedlld abet in the
moval OF these spirits, either from Mersereau's any
other distillcry. am also Clearly OF opinion that
there Is no evidence 10 80 to the jury as to conceament
OF any spirits, ma as the evidence certainly fails
entirely 10 identify any OF the spirits al
legged to have been so removed and concealed.
IL seems to me, therefore, that 1t is the
duty OF the Court to charge the jury that under
the law there rs no evidence whatever which the
defendants, Boyd s. Hill, can BIO convicted unocr
any OF the counts in the Indictment With these
Vows therefore, direct the jury to lind verdict tor
the dcferdants on each COUNT
Mr. Thomas Shields, Clerk of the Court, then called
over the names OF the jury, informed them Of the
directions OF the Courthat they find verdict the
due form Mr. Shields recorded the same. Thus ended
the great Whiskcy Ring conspiracy prosecution that
has occupied the Court and jury before whom II was
tried over month.
REFEREES IN DIVORCE CASES.
The divorce Of John d. Sullivan against Mary
Ann SULLIVAN, the full facts of which already boon
published, came up before Judge Freedman in the
Supreme Court, Special Term, recently, motion
to confirm the referees report, giving judgment for
the plaintln. Judge Freedman yesterday rendered
very elaborate opinion, denying the notion principally
on the ground that the reference irregular.
Judge Freedman holds that there several reasons
why the motion should not prevail No proof appears
have been made TO the service OF the sum.
mons and complaint, as required by rule 81. Notice
OF appearance and retainer sufficient He says the
serious objection Is that the whoc reference
irregular. The defcndan appeared In the action BY
her she denied each and every allegation con.
tanned in the complaint except the allegation OF
riage. Tho issue thus Joined must be disposed Of IN
way authorized by law. 1t can DO disposed OF
only by trial and there but three modes Of trial
first, by jury; second, by the Court, and
third, by q referee. They could have had a
trial by a referee, but instead OF pro-
curing order directing the referee hear and deter
mine the they had order entered requiring
him simply to take proof OF all the material facts set
forth In the pleading and to report the to the
Court, with his opinion thereon. This order he holds
conferred power to try unless referee has author
Ivy upon him by special grant Tor the pur
poses OF each particular case he has power to adj
judcate, nor Is there trial by tho Court and 10
firm the report and award judgment thereon on
motion would amount SUBSTANTIALLY to "a trial OF tho
issues by the Court upon af1davits Judge Freedman
then on 10 explain thc law and the rules and
OF tho Court which govern references for the dis
position OF the issues In actions for divorce on the