ereof
are bad on the face of them, as follows, viz.:--

"First, it nowhere appearing that the same were found by a
grand-jury, because the second and third counts do not
conclude, against the form of the statute, and have no
conclusion, because the third and fourth counts do not set
forth the estate, degree, or mystery of the person therein
charged.

"Because said indictment and the counts thereof are
repugnant and inconsistent, the same being based on an
alleged obstruction, resistance, and opposition to the
service of an action, order, or warrant, which is therein
averred to have been already served, executed, and returned.

"Because the first and fifth counts are double.

"Because the alleged order of May 25th, referred to therein,
was a void and illegal, order.

"Because, if the alleged warrant was served as therein
alleged, said Watson Freeman did not, and by law could not
thereafter, hold the person described therein, under any
process or order.

"And because the same do not set forth and allege fully and
specifically the acts charged to be offences against the
statute, so as to inform said party charged, of the nature
and cause of the accusation.

"6. Because the warrant set forth and referred to therein
was void on its face, and issued from and ran into a
jurisdiction not authorized by law, and directed the arrest
of a person without legal cause, and because said indictment
is otherwise bad, uncertain, and insufficient."

Mr. Wm. L. Burt commenced the argument of the motions, and presented
several of the points. He was followed by Mr. C.M. Ellis, J.A. Andrew,
and H.F. Durant, who severally discussed some of the grounds of the
motions.

Elias Merwin, Esquire, and Mr. Attorney Hallett, replied.

The Court stated that they did not wish to hear Hon. John P. Hale, who
was about to rejoin and close in support of the motion, and decided
that the allegation, on the indictment, that Edward G. Loring was a
Commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States for said
District, was not a legal averment that he was such a Commissioner as
is described in the bill of 1850, and therefore the indictments were
bad.

The Court said they supposed it to be true that Mr. Loring was such a
Commissioner, and that his authority could be proved by producing the
record of his appoi