Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-10-30
kIEcKRoEFER's DEMURRER
His Council Kqsr- Plea That Charges Are
aeaeef and Uncertain.
Case to -.les ct the Earliest Da,
observation-disclosures InvOlv.
ed n4eeea. $4,000.

Francis Julius, Kieckhoefer,> at one time
disbursinESofncet and chief Of the bureau
Of arcounss OF the Department of State,
who was recently reindicted for, the alleged
embezzlerhent and taking of more than
$4,000 of government funds, today with
drew his plea Fl not guilty to the three In
dictments, ard, through Attorney A. 5.
Worthington,S Hled demurrer to each of
the later indictments. Chief Justice Bing-
ham set the matter down for argument
the latter part of next week.
Grounds Alleged.
The grounds of the demurrers are that
the facts constitute no ofiense; that no Of
tense is stated Of which the court has ju-
risdiction: that the charges are so general
and uncertain that the defendant is not
informed of what he has to meet or pro-
tected from, another prosecution for the
same supposed offense; that the indict-
ments do not set forth what person or off,
Ger intfusted sthe defendant with the prop
erty alleged TO have been converted by him
TO MS own use nor how 1t came into his
possession as fdisbursing clerk or as chief
OF the bureau of accounts; that the indict-
ments do not charge that the money was
public money. the divers funds belonging
to other natf6ns'and individuals of which
the Department. OF State has control not
being any part of public money; that the
was In the possession of the defendant by
virtue of his office, either as disbursing
clerk or as chief OF the bureau of accounts;
That the charge that the defendant con-
verted to hiS own use IN some way I'M
known divers moneys that cannot be de-
scribed taken with the generality of the
other averments. amounts legally to no
more than a charge that there is balance
due from the defendant to the government,
an averment which might be made the
basis Of civil action, but which is insult
fcient to sustain an Indictment; that as
chief of the bureau of accounts it is charg-
ed that the defendant was a diSbursing
officer, and there being no statute author
izing the chief of bureau to act as a dis
bursting officer. this charge is mere con-
clusion of law; that the facts which consti-
tuted the chief of a bureau a disbursing
officer should be set forth.
DupIicity In Charges
Also that the indictments are bad for
duplicity in charging the defendant, both
as discussing clerk and as chief of the
bureau of accounts and also bad as charg-
ing an impossibility, or in that the same
nan could hold the same money by virtue
of two different offices at the same tine:
that if the earlier indictments are good
tie later ones are bad; that it is not shown
how the alleged conversion Of the money
and bonds was done. nor does the indict-
nent excuse this omission; that there is
no statute authorizing the chief Of the
bureau of accounts, as such, to receive,
hold or d1sbuEse moneys or bonds of the
United States. and that the act of March
3. 1865, entitled An act to punish certain
larcenies. and the receivers of stolen
goods. DOES not apply here, because there
is not inssthe. District Of Columbia any
District rqr Circuit Court Of the United
Assistant Dhsalrict Attorney shillington
stated to fhe fe419p Squirt that 1t is the intention
of District Attorney Davis to try the cases
at the very earliest day possible.