Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-01-30

s..~~~~s..<~~-~....z-. ~~-~E.s-....-..---..- :
ply, on which acted and made the arrest, ana OF
which the court convicted them.
Wollard though having West IA charge AZ euc
watch-house, preferred no complaint aBa'ns' hli'
for arson. lie conveyed bin 70 the work-house,
there to serve out the remainder OF an unexpned
commitment though during said time having al
the "neccssary Information" derived rom murphy
I'm bis possession.
The evidence in the case Is conclusive that Mr..
Wollard had not the " necessary information 70
Justify even an arrest until at the work-house he
Induced West TO confess. i would not do Mr. VOL
lard who know is one Of the best and most zeal
ously faithful officers 10 the city, the injustice to
suppose that he would have carried West TO the
work-house petty charge when he held all the
necessary information" upon which he could ar
rest and convict him Of arson. There was no eyl'
depce against West apart from his confession,
which would have convicted him that evidence
was not communicated TO Wollard by Murphy, but
was elected by Mr. Wollard, in the jealous and
most iudicious exercise of his Office, from the GRIM
nal himself
In strict equity, If any one could claim the re-
ward, it is due to Mr.. Wollard but feel no hest
tation in stating that, in my humble Judgment,
neither Mr.. Kurtz nor Mr. Murphy have any more
legal or equitable claim to it than has the man ~
the moon Any one of the many persons and
" all the officers who publicly talked of the I'M
doubted guilt Of these two boys, from March till
their arrest, could, think, with as much justice,
ask for the reward as can either Kurtz or Murphy.
return, herewith, all the papers.
Very truly yours, &C.,
Hon. JOAN w. MAuRY
The committee regard this as conclusive against
Murphy and Kurtz, and coincide entirely in opiD-
ion with the late Mayor, that neither were entitled
TO the reward.
On the 8oth of April, 1858, J. f. Wollard pre-
sentcd to the Board of Common Council petition
claiming the reward OF FIVE hundred dollars offered
by Mayor Maury on 3lst May, 1853, which petit
ton is not sworn to; but he admitted before the
committee that he regarded it equivalent to an
affidavit, with one slight alteration.
The question was examined by that Board and
a bill was passed authorizing the Mayor (Towers)
to examine the testimony presented by the various
claimants and to award tho reward to whoever
might be Justly and legally entitled to it.
Mr. Wollard fled before the Mayor written tes
timony in support of his claims. The papers in the
cases of Murphy and Kurtz were also before him
The original affidavit of j. i. Wollard, setting
forth the right of Samuel Murphy to the reward
the statements of Handy, Davis, Steele, and Burch
were all in his possession. The statement of Davis
contradicts the declaration OF Wollard that Muir
ply gave the first information. The statement OF
his presence that Davis had given him (Wollard)
thgfirst information Yet Wolard in his affidavit
of August 8, 1853 made oath that the informa-
ton which led to the arrests and conviction was
arst obtained from Murphy. Davis swears that
the FIRST information obtained was derived by him
from Kurtz, and by him communicated to VOL
lard On the trial, as certified to by Z. @. Caring
ton j. +. Wollard, in answer to the question
what do you know about the case' answered
that, while taking John +. West to the workhouse,
he asked him (West) if he knew anything about
certain fires end that West told him that himself
and Shepard had set fire to certain buildings, and
that upon this information he (Wollard) made the
arrests. sl is
Again. in answer to the question, " was it upon
his (West's) statement that you appeared before.
the Justice and made tho charges against West and
Shepard? ~ he said it was. Yet on the 9th August,
1888. he made oath that he obtained the first In
formation from Murphy. Mr.. Darlington also says
that he thinks he asked him whether he had Gre
oeyed information or any intimation from any one
else than Vest which excited his suspicions2" He
answered, ~ did not" Yet he swore, on the Sd
August 1853, that he received the first informa-
ton from Samuel Murphy; aad in his petition pre-
sented to the Board of Common Council, April 80,
1885. he certihes that after many nights of toll,
he succeeded in arresting the -wc incendiaries,
West and Shepard y and in this petition he makes
no reference whatever to the information which, in
his affidavit of the Sd August, 1853, he says he
obtained from Murphy, or to>the confession which
he before the court admitted he obtained from
West, one of the parties arrested; thus evidently
endeavoring to induce the belief, by the language
of his petition that the arrest and conviction were
due solely to his exertions, unaded by any one,
and without any information derived from any per-
SON. In another statement, made August 26 1858,
in support of the claim OF Murphy, he denies that
either Davis or Kurtz had given him any informa-
ton, and reiterates the fact stated in his affidavit
of the Sd August, that he obtained the information
from Murphy, even as early as March of the same
year.
On the 25th August he says he had obtained in.
formation as early as March from Murphy and in
his testimony before the Criminal Court in June
following he says the only information he ever had
was received from West, one of the criminals. II
is evident that either his testimony before the
court is wrong that his affidavit made ON the 3D.
August and statement on 26th August are untrue.
He further states, in his statement of August 26th
1853, that the negro West had been three times
crested in one month, and Davis had failed to
make the charge of arson against him, West }
and therefore he draws the deduction that Davis
could not have given him (Wollard) any infornia-
ton; but the records of the watch-house show
shat it was him (Wollard) in whose possession the
boy West had been twice in one month hence
the committee conclude that he (Wollard) could
not at the time have had any information which IN
duced him to suspect West or he would have
then arrested him for in this same statement
he says that Murphy had given him inforina-
ton as early as March, which prior to the time
when West was in his possession and before the
court he said that West had given him the infor-
nation on his way to or in the workhouse.
1t is clear then, that one of these statements in
his statement of August 26th must be untrue. In
the statement of August 26th he denies that he
(Wollard) obtained any information from Davis,
yet Handy says he heard him (Wollard) say that
The first information he received was from Davis.