National Republican., 1883-07-31
THE KELLOGG INDICTMENT
Judge Wylies Opinion Overriding the Motion
Of Counsel to Quash.
MIR. Kellogg Pleads Not Gullty-Othcr
Legal Business Transncted Yesterday.

In the criminal court yesterday Judge
Wylie gave his decision in the case of Hon.
William Pitt Kellogg indicted for receiving
money while United States SENATOR and
motion to quash the same. Messrs. Ker and
Merrick appeared for the government, and
Mr.. Nat Wilson for Mr.. Kellogg. Mr.. JEFF
Chandler was present in the interest of Mr..
| Brady, who was also indicted.
! His honor stated that for the present he
| should consider the indictment as under sec
tion 1882 of the Revised Statutes. Ho said
that the charge briefly was that the defend
ant in April lS, 1880, and on subsequent occa-
sions, did receive from j. b. Price 81 500 to
| induce and influence Gen. Brady to make
! two orders on certain mail routes. This was
the charge, and he thought plainly stated.
| The otiense was for receiving compensation
for services rendered. Was that q crime
He did not think there could be any
doubt on that subject. That it was u
| crime for any senator or representative to
receive compensation for any services rem
dered in relation to contract before the sec
ond assistant postmaster general, and this the
indictment charged. He thought that there
entered into the relations between Price and
kellogg all tho elements of an agreement to
pay for services rendered, an agreement to
render the service and payment OF the money.
| If the indictment was true and the charge
could be sustained by proof, then the oHcuso
was such a one as was condemned by section
1882 of the statutes. 1t was said that every
indictment should set out specifically tho
fact and that this one did not specify the
character of the services rendered. 1t would
take sharper intellect than the court pos
sessod to tell the difference between pursua-
sion and argument in case like this, as ar
gument was nothing more than persuasion.
1t was sufficient for the indictment to set out
that an effort was made by this senator to in
| ha gppnn1 t,na for
eral without specifying particularly the
means used The statute forbids the render
ing of service for compensation, and he
thought the indictment would have been
sufficient with an averment that services
were rendered in that manner. This would
have been all required by the statute, but it
went further and stated the nature of the
service. In regard to intent the judge did
not think ii good law to say that the indICt-
ment was not good because il did not set out
the intent to do wrong. The statute forbid
the act, and this he held was sufficient with
out going further, and whatever might be
added was surplusage. He thought the
indictment was under section 1882, and could
be sustained under it, and he would so
decide as it was the duty of the court to
construo under what statute an indictment
was found.
The court overruled tho motion to quash,
and an exception was noted.
Mr.. Kellogg was then called upon to plead.
He waived the reading the indictment, and
entered plea of not guilty.
Mr.. Merrick said that he would like day
fixed for the trial, as the government had wit
nesses to come from a long distance.
His honor said that there were so many
claimants for priority that he could not tell
what could be done. The police cases were
pressing, and he could not now fix upon a
time
Mr. Merrick gave notice to the counsel for
the defendant that on Monday. the eighth day
of October, he should ask the court to set a
day for the trial.
Mr.. Chandler, in behalf of Con. Brady,
offered to file pleas in abatement to the indict-
ment last found against him, but the courtde-
clined to receive them unless the defendant
was present in court -1,.
The court then ad ourned until Oct g. H
Q OTHER BUSINESS TRANSACTED.
0 John F. Ennis, as attorney for Jphn NJ
r Keating and others, yesterday filed n bill in
equity against George Mclaughlin and
others for partition and sale of lots on Pros
J pect hill and a distribution of tho proceeds.
Daniel Shoemaker, by Worthington and
Heady, yestered entered suit in the law side
of the court against Carrie b. Evans, admin
tratriX Of the estate of Johu o. Evans, for
$500 damages. The declaration states that
the plaintiff agreed with said John o. Evans
to sell and deliver to him a certain dredge
Q agreeing to pay him $14,350 The plaintiff
delivered the drodge as agreed, and the said
Evans paid only part of the money, leaving
$500 still unpaid.
John H. Platt, assignee in bankruptcy o
+ Sidney +. Shebourne, yesterday filed Il sui
by Worthington & Head against Carrie b
. Evans, administrators of John o. Evans
y claiming $4,000 damages. The bill set
d forth that ON Oct. 81, 1879, the plaintiff
r owned n steam tug named the Des Valent
and steam dredge named Nil Nisi that th
| q Evans wi hn
|. right carried away both vessels and converted
d them to his own use. BY this action tn
Q plaintiff lost q large sum of money, AM
|, thinks $4,000 will cover it.
1t Lewis New myer yesterday made an as
J. signment of stock and fixtures of 734 Seventh
street in favor of Rueben Harris. Prefer
10 encos are made for rent due to S. Bensingei
S. 81, 1918; Steinem Bros, Sl00; Henry Weyl
h $40; Il. Harris, 1927; Michael Newmyei
4. $465, and j. jolly Jones, 1897.
S, Charles Major, whose capture in Chicag
10 and return to this on Saturday was publishes
10 in yesterdays REPUBLICAN, was arraigne
in the criminal court before Judge Wylie o
l. an indictment found last November for tn
ID larceny of 800 and valuable papers from MI
George w. Adams. He pleaded not guilty
District Attorney Corkhill asked that bail b
fixed at $4,000. The court fixed the bail a
= 1900 and Major was committed in default.
4 THE RECORD.
l. Equity Co,lrt-JudOe James.-IIalliday vs. Hall
nf day; sale confirmed nisi. O'Hare VS.. Walker ct
re- decree yesting title in complanGnts. schlorb v
70 Schlorb trustee authorized TO accept bid. Phili
81 VS.. Walbrd2e; question of counsel referred
ID auditor. Temple VS.. Worhington; sales col
Il flrmed nisi. Crow VS.. Boucher ct al order nal
4 Ing parties. Kelcham vs., directors OF Georgetow
y, College; sales contlrmei nis. Cousins vs.. StRu
IT berger; order that examiner proceed with test
IS mony. Hamilton vs. Morrison; order remandiI
s. cause to auditor. Cornelius VS.. DeVaughn; d
ID cree confirmed sales nisi. Speer VS.. COyle ord
n of ratification of final sale. Ruys VS.. Roys; ordC
iuiunntiOn n a
y complainant ordered to file auditors report.