National Republican., 1883-07-24
THE COURTS.

Arguments Heard Upon the Motion 10
Quash the Indictment Against EI-sena-
tor Kellogg business Trans
acted.
Yesterday in the criminal court Judge |
wylie heard the motion TO quash tho indict-
ment against ex-senator Kellogg for recoiv-
ing money illegally while a government Off
Ger. Mr.. kellogg was present. Messrs. Kor and |
Merrick appeared for the government and |
Messrs. Shellabargor and Nat Wilson for the !
defendant
Mr. Shelabarger opened the argument, and |
his first proposition was that no count OF the |
indictment was good under section lTSl OF |
the Revised Statutes, because the allegations |
contained in the respective counts did not set |
out what amounts to an averment that the |
defendant received or agreed TO receive COM
pensation for procuring or aiding to procure |
any contract, office, or place from the govern |
ment, or from any officer of the United states
for any person." It's defect was as applied to |
this section that what it alleged the defend |
ant procured to be done was not the 'procur-
ing" of any Contract The description OF
what the defendant did was not the descrip-
tiou of the procuring" of either contract or |
office or place. What was set out ana de-
scribed in the indictment was in the exist
ence of an old contract in force at aud before
the acte alleged against the defendant.
His next proposition was that the indict-
ment failed to set out an Oiiense against sec-
tion 1872. the gist of the o6ense, under TINS
section was for the officers to receive or agree
to receive any compensation for services rem
dcred or to be rendered in relation to con-
tract in which the United States was party
or interested, sc. He held that every IN
dictmcnt under this section must contain the
charge that the member Of Congress either
rendered service or agreed TO do so concerning
the contract.
He continued to argue the questions at
some length and in conclusion and rccapitu-
lating, submitted a number OF points to show
that the indictment was bad.
Mr. Ker followed for the government aud
contended that the indictment was found
under section 1872 of the Revised Statutes,
and that there was no doubt that it fit the case
exactly.
Mr.. Merrick, in closing, was still of the
opinion that the motion was frivolous, not
withstanding the argument of Mr.. Shella-
barger.
Mr. Wilson made the closing argument for
the defendant, affirming what his associate
had said in regard TO the motion, claimed that
it should be granted, and cited mum Der oil
authorities in support of his position Mr..
Wilson concluded at $3.50, and Judge Wylie
said he would examine the papers and render
his decision on Monday next.
WRIT OF CERTToRARI WANTED.
John A. Clarke, as attorney for Miss Chris
tiana Strauss, filed petition for writ ofcer-
tiorari to issue to Justice Moss to send up the
case of William Anderson against her She
states that she was sued for S9I, and the sum-
mons was directed to W. G. Taliatero, constable,
and made returnable at Uniontown, Jan. 10
last that she appeared with her witnesses,
and waiting some time, the justice being ab-
sent, she, with the witnesses, left; that II day
or two aftcrward she was informed that the
case had been continued until Jan. 20, at 400
Louisiana avenue, and she appeared at that
time and place. and the justice held the case
under advisemcnt until Jan. 81, and gave
Judgment against her for S3S and costs. She
then gave notice of appeal ana the plalntih
also gave similar notice. rs petitioner says to
m,sead and deiraud her. She states further,
that while taking steps to perfect the APP
peal she received notice that plaintiff would
offer us surety one VIM. Ellis, and the bond
having been approved, as she was informed, she
took no further action. She states that the
Justice on February certified the cause to
the circuit court, and, Notwithstanding, on
that day, or few days afterward, in gross
maud upon her, he allowed plaintiff to with
draw his appeal and in consequence ei this
fraud she lost her right to appeal. This ac.
tun she states, she was ignorant of until
July 10, when one III. r. Maryman called upon
her, and reading IL writ of iieri facas, threat
ened to sell her out instanter the day follow
ing unless said judgment was paid. She state
that she refused to pay anything until she
could consult counsel, aud Maryman agree i
if she would pay him 81 or S3 to see that she
was not bothered. She further states that
the writ is directed w. &. Taliafero, who dis
claims any Knowledge OF it; that Maryman is
not a qualified constable, and the writ was
delivered to him by Chase Roys, plaintiff s
attorney. Judge james granted the writ.
TWO DIV ORCEs GRANTED.
Judge James yesterday granted divorce
to Annie t. Rowlcs, from Edward L. Rowles,
giving her the custody of the children. They
were married in 1863 and she charged ba-
btual drunkenness and non-suppOrt.
Marie +. Seltz was granted a divorce yes
terday by Judge James from Alexan drinC
Seltz on the charge of desertion
THE RECORD.
Equity Court--Jtidqe Jdmes.-Woodruf VS.. Ma
tional Shelf and File company; argument re
Sumud. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance compan
VS.. Post; referred To auditor. Jackson VS.. Black
wood decree confirming sale and reference
auditor. Hoffman vs.. Callan: decree substitutin
trustee. Ohutt VS.. BOhrer order of publication
CosLine vs.. Costine leave to defendants TO file M
swer. Dutton vs. Lewis order sustaining exam
incr to report of commissioner. Rowles VI
Rowles: decree Of divorce. Crown VS.. Boucher
order rntityiug iual sale. Seltz VS.. SeltZ deere
OF divorce. Adjourned until to-day.
TRUNKS and travelling bags in large varie
ties at bottom figures, 3l3 Pennsylvania ave
nue.. or the old stand, 30S Ninth street north
west