Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-04-13
THE ARMIES COURT-MARTIAL.
The Testimony To-day-An Adjourn
ment Till Tuesday.

The Armes court-martial met at IL O'Clock
this morning, and the reading of the record Of
yesterdays proceedings occupied nearly ar
hour
Judge Hubbell noted an exception to the
ruling Of the court yesterday overruling the
plea OF the accused against the Jurisdiction
At 1920 a recess was taken until O'Clock.
MIR. Brinkerhoff was called upon the reas
sembling of the court to identify the letter
from Capt. Armes to the acknowledgement, SUBJ
hitting charges against Col. Gibson and Capt
Bourke, the letter referred to in the specifica-
tons.
TESTIMONY OF POLICEMAN BROKER.
The next witness was Private Brocker, of the
metropolitan police force. He was the Office,
who served the warrant on Capt
Bourke, commanding him to appear be-
fore Judge Miller to answer a charge
OF assault preferred by Capt. Armes
Witness said that the sergeant in charge of the
station handed him the warrant on the evening
of March 8, and said that Capt. Armes wanted
the case to be ready for trial at 10 o'clock the
next morning. He saw Capt. Bourke and told
him to be at the court at that time. The mex
morning when he went to the court he found
Capt Bourke there. Capt. Armes did not ap
pear, and after waiting there for a couple Of
hours they went away.
WHY CAPT. BOURKE WAS NOT ARRESTED.
The officer said, when cross-examined by
Judge Hubbell, that he did not arrest Capt
Bourke. because 'when you have a warrant fol
respectable, decent kind of a man you dom
take him into custody, but just tell him to be
at the court next day." This was what wa.
done in the case of Capt. Bourke.
He did not serve notice ON the prosecuting
witness-Capt. Armes-because the sergeant
had told him that Capt. Armes wanted the case
called for 10 O'Clock the next morning. Il
was an understood thing that Capt. Armei
would be there. There was quite
A LIVELY TILT
between the witness and Judge Hubbell, who
tried to find out why the officer did not serve
subp9nas on the witnesses. The officer grew
little indignant at the judges persistent in.
quiries.
did you not tell Mr.. Armes (the United
States attorney that you had the warrant in
your pocket for two days before you served itT
asked the Judge
No. sir; | did not" was the emphatic reply.
why didn't you serve a subpoena ON Gov
Beaver, whose name was on the back Of the
warrant?'
Because 1 was told that he was not in town
and there was no use to go there to serve a
subpoena on him. One of the officers at the
station told me that"
CAPT. ARMIES LETTER.
MIR. Stanley Waterloo, the managing editor OF
the Critic, was next called. He identified a
copy of the Critic of March 16, containing Capt.
Armes' letter. The letter was not published in
precisely the same terms as when received from
Capt. Armes, having been somewhat less Sc
we're. The witness suggested that some of the
terms used be changed.
ADJOURNED TILL TUESDAY MORNING.
The judge-advocate announced that he had
but one more witness to produce in behalf OF
the prosecution, Mr.. Shillington, the assistant
district attorney. He was unable to appear
being sick in bed, and would probably not be
able to come until Tuesday morning. The
court therefore adjourned until IL o'clock on
next Tuesday