The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1884-08-09

To arguments 81 t""lr'I' NH"' ~ '''
case comprised the ahlc~t lncInp'I> "i I
the Waco bar. I'm arrangement ma"
been made between the attorneys ny
which the four on the Nlur "I w, gov
eminent spoke each an hour ailu were
replied IL 10y ten ''e"rE' I afk III
speech OF TWO hours. Though rh'l'lr"
to four. me speeches were 'I' GU,
inaN of II trial of steady interest ana
were able efforts, Whlrh Irad~ IT, /"
regret That we can give 'h'In ONLY III
part ana substance
HoN.J G.. HInGER
nitnd ~tot,- attorney The ,pccch
nf NIr Eioorr va. directed entirety tn
the l,u al urriurv and WAS more in
th. nnturc of the charge of n iudgr
-hnu fine ~uppch of nm attorney. I'm,
vo. short clcnr and rxno.itiou. of
vn. backed h| voluuiuot,-
rrtrrrnrr tu ,uthnritir. for whirh
.tork. orlow book, had been uilrd mn
ON the do.k b.r,ro lin, The dutin.
Of , I'uitrd STATE. Commission 81.
an nv,miuiuo court we're lie said tu
drtrruinr tryn thiro. and ascertain
tvn t,rt. first whether. tIrr. vn.
,rol,hlr r,uso ia hrlirvr ou alfonso
had hrru cn,uuittnd and ..ruud j..
thn defendant thr nu,, yhn cnnuu,itted
~ va. thrr. in ti,is ro.n reasonable
Ground tn hrlicyr that fine oilrn.c of
,,or;ur, h.d Lcou rn,,nuittrd. MIR
NIirirh was not hrrn tn hn trird the
n,n.tinu hrin, should he hr held tu
hn ,r;ndy And ON iii. distinction i'm
,ho du,v of rn,u,ui-. iuurr. thc. ruiIu-
.nl loid ur.,, .trn.. Nuch h,,d hrru
| ;,,r,l,ond In fla, REGARD ,,hirh did
n.,, Iolnuo ,l,,,. m. Iuitrd State.
I,u. in ,hr-n >,uiuiu,, ,riol. hr -pid
i. .un,,Lntir thnt drtnii. orr moi to he
nntnrnd u,nn In rnrtr,di.tinctiou To
rr,,,i,r allowed i'm the state courts.
~ : q. .I,hn Ia y y II iGGl 50
lt;,, i NO I,n, t.,.t v;tur..r, for
,,r,,.,,,,,,i,,,, ..,n,,,,, IA. ,r,.. rvur,iurd
-. Win + : y. Iu,rr An
att,,hm.nt i nn extraordinary pro
,.,... mi n,,vu ia tI,, common lav Lut
l. .,,t,,nr, and v,s made to force
di.hnu,.., ,u.u tn di.oprur And
uru.t lac construed .trirtb Men
.hnuId IA. t,u,,ht ia lac careful before,
thcv ri,sh i'm and ruin "A man, bust
nos. I'm ollusion to contract with
Ware Stur bank he .nid. fraud can
MOI Inc nrrsmurJ in II conveyance.
ond Try,. n 35y PARTY i, guilty
~ ,o,i,r, II, s,vr,r;u,, la fact. which
Inc h,. moi reasonable ,rouud, to be-
i;.y, IA Inc trun Eunumh he .nid had
h,rrshoXu II, fine evidence warrant
j.,toud,n, hriu,, hold tnont,rnr before
Grand iury There vns mo- doubt lthr
e C,I.itv nf thn otlidnyit Iliuchmnn
wn. solvent. wa, paving hi, debts
nur ottrr thc Other What wa, the
,nntiyc for fine affidavit Aldrich wa,
mad nj Ilinrhmnn about the Murray
notes And what wa, the defence.
Arson unuruvcd and untoumdrd. The
affidavit wu, lrlt for daN- 10 find
urouud for attachment. The defense
wos "a frivolous that il should never
have been heard h> the court
CArr 4. \. BLAIR.
The preliminary effort of Capt
I. Blair was To urgr upon the court III,
e fac, that thi, j. only an examining
;. trinl. and that probable cau.r is ,uili
e cirut To iu-tif, binding the defendant
Y over hciur, the grand Jury. The oh
e icct of this defense had been not :,
l. much to clear the defendant H. ia oh
5 tain bits of comfort in impending tri
:, ais in civil ca,c- between The defend
!, ant aud Ilinchuan and to obscure th'
= issue in this case To- yillitN lIinchlnun
r, both of which were denounced n in
famous. The court will ignore th'
testimony designed Ia soil the fail
I name Of the principal figure IN TIM
case. iIiuchman has shown dispoor
ton to show all hl~ private affairs Il
To- this court. lie Ina, given a mll. a."
+ tailed history of his assets, his debit
A and all thinn~ concerned. a. IA man -