| OCR Text |
Show The Blodsett Investigation. Chicago, 81. The morning sess:on ol the sub-committee from Washington Washing-ton was occupied in hearing the evidence evi-dence ot Durby and Shoop, ru etc he-is of the late federal grand jury. Their testimony was in eUect that an indictment indict-ment had been found by that jury against the register in bankruptcy, tlibbard, for perjury, and making a1 false report, but that District All ruey j BanRa, after promising to draw up an indictment against Hibbard, hud failed to do so, giving as a reason that Judge Blodgett had instructed b.in to withhold it. Bans also refuted to file an indictment, prepared by the jury themselves. Chicago, 31. A careful examination examina-tion of the testimony (( Aasiguee Vceck shows that the witness, last night, contradicted seral poioty mad a by HessiuK in hia evidence, tu the afternoon sraiuu, lo-.!ny, the same line of evidence waa t ikeu us in the morning, the witnesses beiuy 1! members ot the grand jury hist jail. The ttslimouy was that the indictment against H;bbard for liise rtt'inia ww found, made out and returutd, hat that an indictment i'.i!t Hibaid for perjury, altaough tuui.d imd re-poit-.d to Juiigc B.ioa w.ta nut Iramed, Bangs lulormiog the jury ihat, with the CO. currency of Jud.e tiiudgelt, be should refuse tu Irame it acd that Blodsett had said to bun that he ( Bli d gett) waa respou- ibi-for ibi-for the interpretation of the. Itw under which Hbbard made his returns re-turns and Affidavits. Svtral witnesses wit-nesses tefct;fieu to remarks by Ju:ii;e tilodzett, or from bun, toihettVcl that the jury were grangers loaliny here a', government's expense, and hou!d bo dismissed ; a!$o UrA'. Jude Bangs had seemed reluctant to bnu before the jury otaer than minor mat-; ters. |
