Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-12-15
MOVING MOUAT.
A RETURN TINKER. SURPRISED.
HE PKEFEKs JUDGE ELCUCKB TRI-
BCNAL.

NE rHEFEKs JUDGE ELCucks TRI-
BCNAL.
And the commonwealth Takes Him Else
where.
Counsellor w. w. Ker appeared in
Judge Elcock' court, Philadelphia, yes
terday morning aud asked that the case of
ex-Councilman David Mouat, charged
with altering returns, be taken up, as the
defendent was present with a number Of
witnesses and desired the matter disposed
of. The district attorney was not in the
court and Mr.. Ker asked that he he sent
for. After waiting a few moments he
insisted that the case shOuld;proceed. AS
sistant District Attorney Kinsey said he
had received information that the case had
been transferred to the new court house,
that all the witnessed had been so notified,
and that the district attorney was then
ready to take up the case in that court.
Mr.. Ker said he was entirely ignorant of
| any legal order to that effect. Judge Ell
cock remarked that the district attorney
had tile right to 60 on in any court he
pleased, but MIR. Ker contended that after
the Judge had fixed the case for the court
he had no right to transfer it, and that
Mr.. Graham had not the right to alter the
place of trial. eff the district attorney is
ready to 90 on will try tho case," said
the Judge. 81 have nothing to do with
| the other court. If tho district attorney
comes in the case can be tried" ''Wo
| will wait here until the court adjourns'
said Mr. Ker, taking his seat.
Shortly after this occurrence in the old
court house, District Attorney Graham
had tho name of Mouat called in the new
court house. and as he did not respond,
called the courts attention to tho fact.
At that moment Mouat's bail stated to
| Mr.. Graham that he was in the other
court. He was instructed by Mr.. Graham
| to produce him at once in the new court.
His bail, after an absence of a few minutes
returned and said that Mr.. Ker, Mouat's
counsel, would not permit him to come.
He was then told to inform Mr.. Mouat
that if he did not appear his case would
be tried without him. This message fail
ing to produce him in court, tho bail was
again told him he would give him an op-
portunity to bring him in, and that if he
did not do SO his bail would be forfeited
and bench warrant issued. AS he did
followed and the warrant issued.
| that Judge Elcock would not permit the
warrant to DO served in his court. After
consultation with Judge Biddlc, Mr.. Gra-
ham went to the old court house and
stated to the court tho facts of the case,
and requested that tho court would permit
the warrant to be served to produce Mouat
in tho other court as an act of courtesy
to that tribunal. A long discussion
here ensued between Messrs. Kcr
and Graham. Tho district attorney
said that Mouat's boEdsman had been in.
structed to produce him in the new court
that the notice to Mr.. Ker had been served
at his Office by Mr.. Warwick in person on
Monday afternoon and that the question
was simply one of courtesy. The interests
of public justice demand that l shall not
try this case in this place and at this time
and no one has the right to ask from me :,
further explanation. The defendant is in
contempt of court aud has no right TO Sc
lect the tribunal before which he will be
tried"
Judge Elcocx said that while the dis
| trict attorney had the right to regulate the
business of his Office, the mode adopted to
secure the change, met the emphatic dis.
! approval of tho court. "The issuing of a
| warrant against man who is in attend
ance upon an equal Tribunal! cannot be too
severely denounced" he continued, "and
the district attorney had no right to ask
that it should be issued.:' Mr.. Graham
explained that as the bondsman had re-
ceived tho usual notification, it was
tho duty of the district attorney
to ask for the forfeiture of the
bail and for warrant for the arrest Of
the defendant. YES" rctorted Judge
Elcock, but not to attempt to serve it
in open court" Mr.. Graham explained
that he had made no such attempt, but
had only asked that the court would in
rant. Judge Elcock finally decided that
ant should enter new bonds for an appear
ancc in the other court. Mr.. Ker assentcd
to this arrangement and the bai% was re.
newed by Mr.. Thatcher.
MOuat was than allowed to appear in
the other court without having an officer
with him. Mr.. Kcr asked for a conti,u-
ance, on the ground Of absences Of wit
nesses who had been present in the other
court. Judge Biddle however decided that
tho defendant must remain in custody, and
the case 60 ON. The empaneling of
jury was then proceeded with. Upon Il
juror being called and stood aside by the
district attorney. Mr.. Ker raised the
point that as this charge was a misde-
meanOr, the commonwealth had no right
to stand aside. 1t was overruIad, and
thereupon he took an exception. The
jury was obtained at twenty-five minutes
after two o'clock. Assistant District At
torney Warwick then opened the case for
the commonwealth. lie said that the bill
of indictment charged the defendant,
David Mouat, with having altered a
tally-silset at the poll Of the Sixteenth di-
vision of tho Fifth ward at tho last Feb
ruary election. 1t would be proved that
he was not resident of the division, and
had no right within the poll. Before any
important evidence had been given the
court adjourned until this morning. Mr..
Ker made an application that as his client
was under bail in the other court, he
should be allowed to go home for the night.
Judge Biddle said that the surest way
would be for the defendant to 60 into Gus
tody, aud then they would be sure to have
him in court this morning. He was not
going to run the chance of any more mis-.
takes in the case.
Tho Garfield Monument.
The following statement is made by the |
Cleveland com mittee in answer to many