Year: 1874

The proceedings in the General Sessions yester-
day, before Judge Sutherland, were Interesting,
especially to those who are concerned in the
prosecution and defence OF large number OF
liquor dealers who have been indicted for an al
legged violation Of the Excise law The trial of
Martin Nachtman, which Is said to be o test case,
was moved in this Court on Wednesday by Assist
ant District Attorney Rollins and adjourned
till yesterday in order that extra panel OF
jurors might be summoned. After the transaction
OF considerable routine business the Grand Jury
suddenly appeared In court, presenting through
the foreman one Indictment, and as quickly disap-
peared, falling to make the expected presentment
1t was soon discovered that the bill handed to the
Court was new indictment against Martin Nacht
man, and additional light was speedily thrown
upon the matter.


Mr. Rollins said that the indictment just filed by
the Grand Jury was against Martin Nachtman for
violation Of the Excise law and that there was
previously filed by the Grand Jury some months
ago an Indictment for the same offence. He had
ascertained that morning that If the prosecution
went to trial on the first Indictment and technical
point were made by the counsel for the defendant,
the Court would be obliged to instruct the jury to
acquit on the ground Of variance between the
proof and the Indictment. That Indictment was
drawn in accordance with the form which had
been universally employed in the Office OF the Dis
trict Attorney since the enactment OF the original
Excise law, but having been informed that morn.
ing that the courts having held the crime
charged In the indictment to be a local offence,
making 1t necessary for the peader TO charge
the offence to have been committed
in particular ward and to prove it
to have been committed in the ward
as alleged, new Indictment had been prepared.
charging the offence to have been committed in
the Ten ward OF the city OF New York. This was
IN n nte, fort how
very well knew where it was charged that Martin
Nachman was engaged in business. The new In
dictment also contained another count, but it did
not admit OF any evidence which would not have
been admissible under the former indictment.


Mr. John McKeon said that the defendant had
not yet pleaded to the June Indictment and was
ready To enter plea upon tnat.


fendant to plead TO the first indictment, and
indictment OF the 23d OF June 1874. He arraigned
him on the second indictment, which, according
to the statute, superseded the first


Mr.. MCkeon intlmated that the motion should be
to quash the first indictment, and asked that an
order be entered discnarging the bail in that


Judge sutherland directed that a noe prosequi
be entered in reference TO the June indie ctment


Mr.. Rollins was willing that the bail should be
discharged upon that Indictment, and moved that
the defendant Nachtman be put In custody upon
the new Indictment


Mr.. McKeon asked for bail, wnereupon Mr. Rol-
Inns objected to the detendants being bailed be.
cause he wanted to proceed with the trial.


Judge sutherland was inclined to think that the
old bail would hold good The accused was in
court, and the next thing was Tor him to plead to
the Indictment when arraigned upon it.


q Mr.. Mckeon said, ~ know nothing OF this paper
(meaning the new lndctmenp; ] won't touch 1t
until have time to look at 1t; want q copy OF
the indictment for the purpose OF examining 1t
ana seeing what plea should be made"


Mr.. Rollins explicitly stated that the first count
with selling liquor to one August Erben, was pre-
csey the same as the nrst count in the June IN
the Tenth ward, and the second count int charged
that the accused sold liquor to one Jacob Waller.


Mr.. McKeon persisted In declining to plead until
he had an opportunity OF examining the indlct-
ment, and continued to protest In his character
istically earnest style against bang forced into
the trial OF the new Indictment, and urging with
great vehemence the postponement OF the trial.


At the conclusion OF this mental pyrotecnnIc dis
play His Honor reminded air. McKeon that he
was not deaf, said he would protect the dignity of
the Court, directed the Clerk to enter plea OF not
guilty and added. UNLESS there is some other


During the excited coloquy which took place
Mr.. A. Oakey Hail. the associate counsel n6a bayina
remained perfectly mute up to this stage OF the
proceedings, now arose and said


"PhySical DEAFNESS Is no. the only tnfrmitv OF
noble minds. There is sometimes a mental deaf
ness, and do not wish to be accused OF that nor
still. have endeavored to protect nv own
dignity IN TINS matter M by keeping stIll" Mr.. Hall
motion was that the hearing in this matter be
postponed Tor day, In order that he mighs nave
time TO @ LOOK at the indictment II the Court in
righr to subsequently Withdraw the plea and
make motion 10 quash he indictment.


Judge sutherland defined hts position BY saying
that the urst point which he wanted to settle was
the question OF pleading, and then he would be
gad TO hear the counsel upon the motion to post
pone the trial.


Mr.. McKeon was evidently not 80 willing to
enter the arena as his plucky opponent; for when
| ever District Attorney Rollins moved the case for
trial the mercurial MeKeon sprung to his feet,
calling Tor ''timeW IL is not customary tor the
merry Mckeon to admit that he is worsted
IN any worry warfare; but his repeated de-
mands f0r "timeN this OCCASION indicated
that ne was disnclined to measure swords
with the brilliant Rollins without feeling tnat he
was thoroughly equipped for the tray.


The "proceeGlngsn were brought to an end oy
! the Judge ordering that Mr.. Nachtman give bail
1 In the sum OF $500 to answer TO the Indictment
that he could plead guilty or not, rs he chose,
| hat IN ha 1adf