Martinsburg gazette and public advertiser. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1826-1833, 1831-05-12

Il
nj OF a novel case recently decided befre
Judges Fox and Watts, at boy lsstown, Bucks
county. Il was 90 an indictment against
Robert Roeett for EaDes Dropping, being
the third Indictment for a similar offence
WHICH has ever occan1d in Pennsy lvania---
| The evisence IN this case was, that the de-
PENDANT went to house in the evening, and
looked in at the window and that he did
tell slaudsi Gus and mischieyous tales OF what
lac saw there. Evidence was also given by
the owner or sccupier OF the house, that he
authorised the defendant 10 go about the pre-
misses. 10 watch the conduct of his wife, and
sec ,f there was any thing anIss. The naTe
Of The prosecuting Is published, W elhciIpina
| Brcdnax. The COUNSEL for the defendant con
| tended that it was doubtful whether the Of
| fence came within the criminal law OF the
state, and If within the law it vas descrip
! tiou Of prosecution that should not be encsa
| ragged lie read case whica some time
since occurred in Philadelphia, which dcci
ded that Ieeping er looking is not an indict
| able offence, it must be by listening or hear
| kenins after discourse, that the offence Of
| Eaves Dropping il committedj and a man IS
| committed; aud a man is allowed TO peep
! wherever he peases, without being indictable
The counsel for the prosecution, among
other things, said
The offence now before you is not tri-
fling in lis nature, IL is calculated TO strike
| at the root Of society. What offence can be
more enormous ia its character, or more inn
p0rtant In its results, than TO Surround your
| house, which 10 your castfs-a castle no ono
dare invads-to listen TO your private con
yersation with your family, and 10 form tales
OF mischief This case presents as gross an
instance Of Eaves DropPin. as ever came
I1I,, A. L. kt
you wall pursue ii strictly"
The Judge in hi, charge held this Ian
gnage:-
81 consider this as n serious kind Of Of
fence. Every mans house is us castle, where
no man has right to lntrude for 10 purpose
whatever. No man has a right 10 pry into
your secrecy in sur own house. There are
very few families where even the truth would
not be worry unpleasant to be told all over
the country 1t mi. ht perhaps cause the lie
struedon Of the family, svcn if the stories
told were true. Suppose in this case they
are true. suppose they are false, and thls
man did 20 10 that house, for the purpose Of
framing these stories. Why, you have it in
evidence that this family is sundcr.d; that
the husband an | wife do not live together -
! Therefore, Ii is Important TO all persons, that
Our families should he sacred from the Intru
sion of every person. Then this case | sep
, pose 10 be settled, as TO the Law, and To be
come mere question Of fact. Did he go
there and listen wah the intent to frame
slanderous tales? &c. II a man goes with
! intent to effect certain purpose, ii is for
yoa 10 determine whether he would not nae
all bis senses 10 make the discovery; nhe
Their be would not listen as well as look and
If you are satisfied he did listen with that ip-
tanF .,,i,
ment
Another question is presented in this case,
and it is a sciious one. Some evidence has
been offered TO shew that tbs owner Of The
house-the husband-gaye tins man autho-
rlty to watch his wife. Ii he did So as he
had right, the defendant should be acquit
ted. There ID no law that can prevent hus.
baud iios constituting watch over his wife.
A husband may slanGci his wife, vet shecan
rot maintain an action ltr the SANDER II
tho wife is slandercd by another, The husband
must join in the action for the sander, and
there Is 10 way that know Of Ter her 10 Oh
I tain redress a law against hen husband. And
it he has given this man authority to watch
I his wife, do not know bow he can be pros
ecued But II is for the de tendant to make
!, , out this par; Of the proof of authority II
-he has proved it, il is good evidence for him;
} If not, 1t is not sufficient for his defence
/ am decidedly Of oplaion that il the hus-
band gave authority te The defendant to watch
his wife he cannot be indicted for caves drop
ping"
This Is rather an ungalisnt conclusion to
arrive at, and we have given an abstract OF
this case for the benefit Of all suspicious hus-
bands, and suspected wives 1t is only ne
cessary 20 add that the jury being men, and
some Of them, probably, having an interest
in the issue, acquitted the caves dropping Mr.
Robert Lovctt, and saddlcd the immacu late
Mrs. Wilheimina Brodnax, with the costs
"Oh for the days Of chivalIy."
african Cojoni:Gtion Extract of a letter
from the Secretary OF the American Col0ni
zation Society, at Washington, to the Score
tary of .he Auxiliary Society 10 the city of
New York
WA-H,sGToN, April 81, 1881
BY tAe l0ih of May, forty emigrants may
be expected. 30 be ready to embark at Nor
folk, and we hope larger number. We de
sire 10 know, as early as may be, what mum
her are to be expected at New York, and
whether we may REV upon your efforts for
the amount OF $1,000 dollars 10 carry the OBJ
ject into effect. Since the date Of nay last
letter, the Philadelphia Society has made "A
loan to us exceeding 5000 for the purchase
OF a schooner for the Colony, which is i'm
niedlately to be built at Baltimore. IL you
can obtain donations, in goods, provisions,
articles of clothing, mechanical and agrrcui-
!