The New York herald., 1877-01-07
THE COURTS.
Another Effort to Quash the Whis-
key Indictments.
HE lLL-FATED HARVEST QUEEN.
Judicial Check Upon the Lordly
Airs OF Assignees.
A FRIEND IN NEED REMEMBERED.

In the United States Circuit Court yesterday mo.
ton was made quash two indictments in the cases
OF tho United States james Anthony which are OF
that class known as the whisKey indictments The
charge laid In one indictment was, conspiring with
John W. Bingham and Gordon B. Bingham dstillcrs
at Evansville, Ind, to deiraud the United States out
of the tax imposed by law upon distilled spirits and
the removal Of distilled spirits, in pursuance Of said
conspiracy, frcm the dstillery OF the Blnghams 70
New York. There were also several counts Tor aiding
and abetting in the unlawful removal OF such spirits
10 New York without payment OF the tax imposed by
law upon distilled spirits. The other indictment
charged the making Of false entries and the
Of true entries respecting distilled spirits on the de-
iendant's government book-thc defendant being a
wholesale liquor deaer--in violation OF the Revised
Statutes. The expression 'dised spirts"is defined for
the purposes OF the law by section 3,24s, and 1t was
contended by Mr. Thomas Harand for the defendant
that this defnition would fcrmented liquors
upon which different tax was imposed the indictment
should contain aegatioLs to exclude lermented liquors.
and was, therefore, fatally uncertain and wanting in
particularly Roger W. Sherman, Assistant United
Stuos District Attorney argued in support Of the in
dictments that as the gravanen offence the
intent TO defraud the United States out OF tax, the
description IN the Indictment Of the tax being In the
language of the statute imposing the tax suf
Gcicnty that the definition in tho statute was
the use OF chemical terms, which chemically, did not
describe ormeptcd liquors :; that II ermentedliquors
como within the definition OF distilled spirits a tax OF
ninety cents gallon could be collected upon
icrmcnted liquors, which was clearly ABSURD and that
The motion quash being addressed to the discretion
Df the Court, the latter might supply any supposed
uncertainty by ordering bill OF particulars Counsel
distinguished this where the objection
Of uncertainty" rs usually made; this IS raising
question at most as whcn tax the conspiracy had
been formed TO deiraud the United States out off,
which oil two offences had been committcd-and was
not case where because Of the uncertainty, all the
lacts charged might be true, and yet no offence have
been committed Under the indictment under section
33lS which followed the language OF the statute, he
claimed that the law imposed no duty to make en-
tries respecting fermented liquors in such book
described in the Indictment, but did not impose such
duty respecting distilled spirits, and this must bo
taken to mean these spirits aud other spirits. A
number OF cited and several authorities
chemistry read. The decision was reserved Tho re-
this will determine all the whiskey indct-
mcnts 4
FATE OF THE HARVEST QUEEN.
The suit Of @. H. Marshall and others against the
Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, to
1925, 600 damages for the loss OF the ship Harvest
Queon OF which the plaintiffs owners, and which,
IS they aege was struck sunk by the defendants
steamship Adriatic in the Irish Channel, comes up
In the Admiralty branch OF the United States
District Court, before Judge Blatchiord. Tho libel
nled In Court states that December 80, 1875, the
Harvest Queen sailed from Cork Harbor for Liverpool
with valuable cargo and when hfty miles from land,
and while preceding up tho Irish Channel, she was run
into by the steamship Adriac OF the White Star ine
on her port bow From the damages she received In
the collision she sunk in very short time
and the MASTER the officers ana all hands were
lost The general course OF the Harvest queen was up
down the Channel and their courses crossed but
slightly, II ut ALL The collision, 1t is claimed, was
caused by the negligence and improper conduct Of
those board the Adratc, in not having good and
sufficient lookouts in running at too great rate Of
peed in not keeping out OF the way OF the Harvest
Queen ana In not stopping and backing IN time TO
AVOID the collision The answer to the libel donics
that the date question the Adratic neglected any
Of tho usual precautions observed at sea- and states
that during the night strange vessel observed
short distance ahead that the strange vessel changed
her course several times at short intervals, twlco
crossing the course OF the Adriac. aud that although
all the usual means taken to avoid contact, the
strange vessel collidcd with the steamer The former
lost Of her spars and some tackle but the hus OF
the two vessels did not in contact The stranger
then bore her and was soon lost TO the view
Of those board the steamer the darkness.
Shortly after the collision the officers OF the Adriatc
heard cries for help apparently proceeding from tho
water. Two boats were Instantly manned and lowered
and sont out TO render succor but no objects wero
visible--the cries had died away and the boats re-
turned 30 the steamer The defence claim that The
Harvest Queen II lost at ALL lost tho following
day by colding with some vessel other than the
Adratic On their as set lorth, they ask for
dismissal OF the complaint Tho case will occupy
the Court for several days. very vouminous mass
OF dispositions are TO be read.