Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-06-12
'Yrial Of the Mail Robbers.

|
| the Circuit Court of the United States for
| the eastern district OF Pennsylvania, be-
! fore r. Washington, esq. president, and
| X. Peters. esq. associate Judge. The pre-.
secuiion was conducted by c. J. Iuger-
| soil, esq. district attorney, and the de-
fence by/. Phillips. esq. who was APP
| pointed for tba: purpose by the court.
| Mr.. M9ersoH opened the cause 10 the
| jury by detailing the facts that would he
| given III evidence, and concluded the
| opening by reading the law. on which the
| indictment was founded. III contaiRed
| III the 10Th and 2ist sections OF ihe act
regulating the post etiice establish
| mcnt." passed April 80. 1910" That il
| any person shall rob any carrier of the
| mail 81 the United States, or other person
| entrusted Herewith, Of such mail, or OF
| part thereof, such offender or offenders
shall, on conviction, be imprisoned not
exceeding ten years and if convicted a
second time ola like offence, he or they
shall suffer death or If in et2ecfiH2. such
robbe,y of tie mai, the. f,St time, The offend
or shall wound The person having custody
thereof, OF PIT his life in ieopaTdy by the use
Of dangerous reHpo',S, Such otfender o. of
fepders she'll suffer death" E. Sect 10.
Hhat every person who shall procfie,
o'@, dd''iSe o. assist III the doing or perpe-
trailng ofany Of the acts or crimes hy this
act forbidden 10 be done or performed,
shall be subject TO the same penalties ant
prn1simenfs as the persons are subject to. who
shall actually do or perpetraie any of he
said acts or crimes, according to the pro-
vision of tits act" Section 81.
Mr. IngersoHthen offered the record of
the conviction of John Alexander and
others, who were the principals in the mail
robbery, and who were convicted at Bal
iimcre.
Nr. Phillips objected TO this conviction
being recei ed By the court, because there
is no a'testatlon of the presiding Judge
that the certificate attached To the record
is that of tn clerk or, that the sal is
that of The court or, that the record j.
In legal form. Also, that the record is on
three distinct sheets Of paper, not attach
ed or connected together.
Mr. IgerSOU. Ifihis Vs. ere a state court.
and this record certified from one county
10 ANOTHER, as il Is, would II be in form =?
That Is the question for the districts of
the u. ). are part Of the same country
and not foreign TO each other. To re-
CURE the certificate of the presiding Judge
would end in nothing: for then yo4 must
go further, and get a certificate, If snch
thing could be had, that he is a Judge n
the Circuit Court, which would be- diff
cnlt thing, as the judges ofthc Supresle
Court are not commissioned Circuir
Judges. Besides, the Circuit Judge does
not appoint the clerk, and probably never
sees his commission. All he knows is tile
acting OF ihe clerk ofticio, and possess
ing and using the seal Of the court.
AS TO the 2d objection, MIR l. observed.
that the record is written in the same
hand, and is connected in the mailer
from sheet 10 sheet, and there is nothing
IN IT that can for moment make lie
court doubt that If is not the entire re-
cord. II is Tor The court 10 say, from an
examination of il, whether they believe it
To be all one record
Mr.. Phillips. This record is signed Inv
+. Moore, and il is impossible for this
court to know, judicaliy, that p. Moore
Is clerk of tire court whence the record
issued he gives the only evidence. that
he is clerk, which the law viii not allow.
The danger of accepting record of this
KIND, would be very great, and might lead
10 very serious frauds, for il would be an
easy matter for man TO sign himself
clerk, and step into the clerk Office when
he was absent, and attach The seal TO a
certificate that he was clerk. In execut-
ing commissions in ci,H cases, The great
est strlctness is observed and required
and where the record consists of more
than one piece OF paper, every sheet is
marked and numbered, and attached TO-
getber. The same strictness sI,ouid he
observed IN criminal cases, particularly
where the life of the man is the forfeit. i'm
case OF conviction.
Mr.. +. also objected, that If was moi
certified TO be full exempliiication ofthe
record
The Court, over-ruled the objections.
AS to the first objection, there is no law
which requires such certificate. The
act OF Congress of the Goth Nav, 1890, q
vol. 49, does not apply to the records of
the federal courts and even as to the re-
cords OF the state courts, that act does
not require certificate ofthe Judge, that
the person attesting the record is clerk :.
u is sufficient III this case, that the seal of
the court is affixed. Were ii the record
OF state court, the certificate Of the pre-
siding judge, that it was in due form.
would be necessary
As to the other objection, il is bv no
means fatal to the evidence, although il
is certainly improper to certify records i'm
the way that this is, in sheets unconnecf-
ed by some fastening. But if the conrt
upon inspection, is satisfied, las We are i'm
this case) with the verify of this record,
that is sufficient.
Mr.. I"gersON then read the conviction
OF John Alexander and others, indicted
Tor robbing tie mail, from the record of
the circuit court in Baltimore. He then
called the following witnesses
Owen Churciman, affirmed. - In consr-
| guence CONFORMATION left al my counting
| house by MIR. Bailey, was going TO see
him on my way ! met Wood, The prls-
oner, aud another, (by the name Of Dagis)
converslng together; ] followed them