New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-04-30
TIE STHAW BONn CASES.

WASHINGTON, April 29.-Judge Wyhe IN the
Criminal Court to-day considered motions to quash msue
BY counsel defence in the straw bond cases inc
motion IN the Armstrong case is based upon the same
ground " misnomer which was allowed In apaNuep'
BY Judg. wyhe in Rcrdeus In the case OF BOONE
WHO charged in additionto other things with suoorn
ton Of p rjury the defence slege that the 1n'c'e
found by the Grand Jury under sections ''S- anu 80,
Revised statutes of the United STATES ana soo'o -
NJ the suppe1nent OF the Revised The deiehee
claim that section 1856 OF the Dis'rct Ooue Pi"
for the punishment Of perjury, and tha' Il Is i"''
diorent from the general law They then quote secuon
900 NJ the District Code and claim that Speci"'ay
decides that the District Code must prevail ID cases VI
conflict
and Jndse Wyue then Qusshed the two Indictments
against Miss Armstrong upon the ground OF hlshaheo'
Mr. Hounsheu. OF counsel for Boone. then brought up
the motions to quash his clients case lie salo he
was only prepared to-day argue the motion Da-eo Old
the Improper conduct Of the Grand Jury but thee were
other matters pending
Judge wyie said he had already disposed OF the
Grand Jury question Ill former motions and lie c"ud ho
entertain motion 10 Investigate the alleged misconduct
Of the Grand Jury he had said before the defence
could mpesch the composition Ofthe jury he would con
slider that motion, ana not otherwise. .
shell pTocredeI to argue length upon HE motion
Judge Wyhe interrupted Mr. Hounsnel 10 say 'na we
Court well understOOd what constituted ptJIl III Wv
District tue punishment therefor no" ne genera
law provided class ~ peJdTe, ana Oh sup"l
dinaion OF perjury, III aGdon 20 that already e1lsIhs
The revised statutes said That any general law not a
peahlc the existing statutes OF the Dsfct thouu az
Qy here As long the ISL TIE supreme "uil
Lad decided tu- question. liz really did DOT see wherein
The District code ard tue genera! law were rtpuSh'hl
He Wa. r,ndy to hear the counscl iurthe on
fbe the conclusion of his ar&dhth on lhls
motion 4 Ioun-ne stated that he would shbm ' 'He
Cont urluisd briefs The other motions, ana hdSo
AL Outline OF their nature -, 90, 90
Mr. Kcr TO- the purpose OF enlehtening the Court as
to IL, nature OF thc indictments. described In deth one
of lie OVcr acis charged taking up a. an example 'he
MEG. al coSl pr0pert, IL Morgan county Ky wlch Is
de.,rhed III the Indictments having served a. Sc
.ur1fY for over uundrcu contract.
Nlr smith a. cO4n-Cl fOI HENDERSON, another o. the
defendants hen lOok up the motion IN Ills cast an
Tapi.lv reviewed The Indictment IN that case. he
I'luirl oi iue difference between THIS AMI the otheI
case AMI read The eatutes applying 10 mai letlngs
anu argued that the Indictment charged ~" si'd'oi!
offence and claimed thai the cDarst ol perjury, bchB
felOb, overldos tie charge Of cOnSInfa y, "Ihtn Is
Uerei, aIulsdeueauOr lie therefore asked the court
10 usn tnt IndIC, DrCaue thcc Was 10 htcAi'H
shown 10 dciraud the Uried states
Judge Nylr entered uto the meaning 81 conspiracy
h said II was essential -Io1D charge OF Hihi-
acy to.,low thai some fraud crime was aimed al
AleTward IL overt act was committed 10 IUlturl
auce ui Iis objects aud described III tne lAdcl-
uent then indictment Was good lie hdu u"l as Sc'
examined the Indictments, bat ho would 40 So
After dIgumcnt, u Was rang u To he'l
Nj keT further those pOts Oh TUESDAY hoSlahd 1L9
adjourned