Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-12-10
The Case Of Capt. HoMxate.


To-day. in the Circuit Court, Judge Macarthur
the case of the United States against Henry W
! Howgate was taken ur-Messrs. Jere wilson, f.
r. Cuppy and A. B. Wiilirms for defendant and
Mr. W. A. Cook, special attorney and District At
Iorney CorkhiIl for the government ii will be re-
| memoered that after the arrest OF Capt. Howpatt
In August last, charged with embezzlement OF
moneys moneys entrusted in his hands as dis
| was held TO bail by Commissioner Bundy.
The following morning Capt Howgate took the
dax tSe eHpress ,ra,n Tor New York and the same
| suit 10 recover over 100000 An affidavit having
| peen made that How9ate was abscoading, writs OF
attachment We're issued under which his property
was taken 10y the government, and a motion TO
dissolve was afterwards made. There was quite a
large attendance in court to-day of members OF the
| par and others interested.
| MONEY ENTRUSTED TO HowGArE TO INVEST
| BEFORE the motion was taken up, MT. Worthing-
Ton asked for judgment by default I'm the case OF
James b. Winner against Howgate, for some $500,
money entrusted to Howgate to invest, which
| suit was Instituted September 7th. In this case a
| Wrt OF attachment was issued and served Mr.
Cook said that the government may have some
! @ tights IN TINS case The court directed Judgment
/ TO be entered The emoney is alleged TO have been
placed in the hands of defendant on July is, 1881
| 10 purchase nifty shares OF the Northern Belle
| thirty days The stock was then $40 per share
/ MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE GOVERNMENT ATTACH
| MENTS.
The counsel having signified that they were
| DiStitl AttOIHes oOrknlll was sent 10r.
| Mir. Cuppy, for Captain Howgate, made the mo-
ton to dissolve the attachments, the grounds be-
ing, firstit was not properly brought, and second
1T should set out that IL was brought in the in
terest OF the United States.
Mr.. Cuppy argued that under the statutes every
| special attorney should be commissioned as spe-
cial assistant attorney general or special assistant
OF some District attorney. and he said that they
were for the purpose OF assisting such officers and
| were In no Way 10 bring suits in behalf of the
! United states. There was 10 authority for such
an officer as especial attorney for the United
States, as was signed. This suit was not brought
in the name OF the special assistant attorney gen
eral or special assistant district attorney lie had
net been abie to fnd in the statutes the name of
the officer as given. The district attorney has
exclusive authority under the laws to bring suits IT,
the name OF the United States. All the authority
was under the statutes and 1T could be said to
De conferred by implication. The statutes did
not olvest the attorney OF the United States OF
this right He read on this point, Justice Miller
IN the Floyd acceptance cases In the 9TH Wallace,
otto On the point that the power cannot be taken
hy he read from 9TH Blatchford, 427,
al against Samuel III. Doty-a patent case for i'm
pioyement in skeleton (hoop) skirts.
Inc court asked IL there was any assertion OF
authority In the affidavltS and received a negative
answer.
The Court.-what is your motion?
Judge Cuppy.-Our motion is to dissolve the at
tachment
SUGGESTION OF THE COURT.
The Court do not know that you can on a
mere motion accomplish the desired end. This is
defect which can be reached by demurrer and
by demurrer is the proper course.
Mr.. Cook said that the statutes prescribed that
that should be the proceeding.
The court said he would not permit his s,lr-
gestion to operate as decision until he heard the
counsel further.
Mr. Cuppy hoped that the court would allow It
TO remain as a suggestion for the present. Mr.
Cup Cuppy = read the statutes as TO attachments, and
said that the a1idasitS were defective in their
reference to the declaration.
The Court-Jnst 60 on and see how parties get
rid Oh the attachment.
MIR. Cuppy read the statutes further, and said
that ii seemed to him that al they need do was to
show that the declaration Was signed by ali officer
Mr.. Wilson. in addition to the authorities given,
presented others.
Mr.. Cook said the gentlemen on the other side
could see nothing in the affdavits. and they could
sneer, but that did no harm. He saw something in
them, and he read "Abner b. Newcombe,
officer of the United States, and is an
agent thereof, &c., to the amounts due to the as
property He also read the affidavit or Lieut. Lv
CazlaIc that the investigation was going on. He
cited rule 25 OF the court rules to that it was
unnecessary to set orth IN the pleadings the fact
that the party is pleader-the signature being
sufficient 1t was about the first time i'm modern
days that t. the integrity of declaration had been
law before the court
anything in addition to what Mr.. Cuppy had said
as to the practice, he would hear MIN.
,,nito MI wson SAG the question was whether the
could recognize; whether their object could be
reached by motion to dissolve or attacking the
ing no authority for the case in
tha this no. form, ,.n it ,, was brought in,
a suit without authority, and If he could show
that there was no authority, the declaration should
be treated as nulty, and the attachment should
ship will be worked, Tor man may file "A declar.-
Glon ana attach property, tielng it up, and the
quent term can hear the demurrer
Mr. Cuppy.-Here's case in 33d California.
Mr. Cook.-When the case comes properly before
the court Will show that there is authority for
DECISION OF THE COURT DECLINING 10 GRANT THE
NOTION.
The Court said that this was case where the
defendant OH the record should be held to strict
practice. The aflidavts show a large defalcation,
an enormous breach OF trust and there was no
reason why he should not be held to a strict
practice. The attachment depended upou the
strength of the af1davitS, and he had never known
case where, when the truth or the affidavfts was
admitted, the attachment was dissolved. The
only way to dissolve the attachment was to trav-
erSe the truth OF the afiidayitS, or want of con-
formty TO the statutes, or demur to the suficiency
or the declaration. For these reasons and others.
he thought the practice erroneous and should de-
cline to grant the motion without, however, any
prejudice 10 the points raised. They could adopt
either OF the three courses named
The counsel ior defense asked to note an appeal
from the ruling-tO save their rights.
The House Offices.
APPOINTMENTS BY CHIEF CLERK MCPHERSON TO
DAY-OTHER MATTERS.
MT. Mcpherson to-day made the following ap-
pointments: Mr.. John X. Bailey to be chief clerk
OF the House, vice Green NJ. Adams; Aaron
Russell messenger, vice Adam Reesinger; A.
Herbertan LLOYD to a clerkship I'm the clerks
Office, vice H. A. Olcott. Mr.. Bailey, who is made
the chief clerk was for many years the acceptable
diSburSing clerk OF the House.
The following appointments were made this
afternoon: Chas w. Ciisbee, reading clerk in
place of Thos s. Petit, and j. Gilbert White at
the Speakers table. Mr.. Clisbee formerly held
the place many years When the democrats got the
control OF the House he removed to Michigan and
was elected circuit Judge in that state. He was
backed by the delegations OF several states
Mr.. John r. Hunt, who was formerly the
carpenter OF the House OF Representatives will,
after the holidays, probably succeed MIR. John r.
Dove, who how holds the place.
Col. w. II. Virgins, clerk in the House docu-
ment room. is being urged for retention by MEM
bers OF Congress Irrespective OF party.
Mr.. ThonlS S. Petit, who was succeeded as read
ing clerk OF the House by Judge Clisbee, will re-
turn to Kentucky at once. There is strong
pressure made by the friends OF Mr.. Petit In the
Congressional district In which he resides {the |
2d kentucky, to induce him to run for Congress |
There has been a conference between the |
Speaker and Clerk OF the House with reference to |
the iourna1 clprE There 8 the hest rpaSon \