Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1884-05-02
KELLOGG ACQUITTED
Under the Statute of OfLimitatiOns-Judge ge
MlisA-s Charge.


WAsHINGroN, May 1.-The Criminal
Court to-day resumed the trial of the
Kellogg case, and Judge Wylie delivered
his decision upon the motions by the de-
tense to reject l'rice's testimony and all
evidence relating to orders for expedition
upon his routes. He said the Indictment
charged a statutory ofense, a violation of
section 1872 of the Revised Statutes. 1t
was not strictly case of bribery, but one
provided for by that section, which for
bids any Senator, directly or indirectly,
from receiving any compensation in rela-
ton to any government contract. Briefly
summing up the evidence already given,
1ge Wvlie referred to the counts in the
indictment charging kellogg with having
received $500 from Price at different dates,
beginning April Is, 1880. This wog:ld bring
the offense within the three years limii
imposed by the statute of limitations. III
Price testified before the grand Jury as he
did here, then tie Indictment gave a
wrong date, for the bribery took place
April Is, 1879, and prosecution was barred
No doubt the prosecution knew it was nee
essary to have date that would bring it
within the three years limit. The defend
ant never is required to plead the statute
OF limitations in criminal case. He sim
ply could not be prosecuted. If the otfense
CudIBeu WAS COtilmllltu On ApTll
Is, lS79 it was the duty of the Court to
say it was impossible to convict the defend
ant.
The Court reviewed the testimony OF
Price and concluded April Is, 1879, was
the true date upon which the statute of
limitations began to run on the note. The
orders were accepted for what they were
worth. Risk of payment was taken by
Kellogg, and there was no liability upon
Price. The business was settled the ser
vices were rendered, aud here is your pay
your pay in orders. The date must be
taken as Of April Is, 1879. There could be
no doubt about that. 1t was too clear to
require discussion. The next question was
whether the evidence sustained the charge
of the Indictment that the defendant had
received $500 in lawful money. The
Court held he had not, and decided that
P.ice's evidence must be excluded.
After a short consultation, Reynolds ex
pressed his disappointment that the mo-
ton had been sustained. AS the govern
ment understood it, the Court held that
the offense wss barred by the statute Of
limitations. There was therefore nothing
for the prosecution to DO but to submit
the case to the Court.
Judge Wylie, turning to the jury, said
Gentlemen, this defendant is entitled TO
NouI NSIulCl.
The foreman rose, and in answer to the
clerks query, responded mot guilty"
Kellogg and his counsel left the court
room. As they fled through the door
way the District attorney said he desired
to enter a role pros. as to Price in the in
dictment wherein ne is charged with con-
spiracy with Thomas ]. Brady.
This course was taken in fulhlment OF
the promise that Price would not be pros
ecuted if he told the truth.
Judge Wylie-I have no doubt he told
the truth, and that you are doing right.
Adjourned.
In conversation with reporter after the
adjournment, the District attorney de-
clined to express an opinion upon the
question whether or not a nolte pros. en-
tered IN Frice's case would operate to
protect Brady from prosecution, but such
seemed to be the general impression
among the lawyers. ker expressed his
disgust with the methods of administering
justice in the District. He was almost
sorry he had not given the name Of Kel-
lcgc's friend referred to yesterday, who
had asked to have the dates placed in the
in allotment.
"Who was it?" queried the reporter.
sEGaorpa Rliss - WAS the answer