Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1857-03-13
EVENING STAR.
THE BLUE DRAGON.
leo NcLUDED.l .


OF this opportunity to delay the torture. 1,
seemed at first sight no mere invention of tbs
prisoners friends. a company commanded
by Captain de Long was really in garrison
corporal Of that name had served in it, bu
had deserted or disappeared four weeks back
Till then, all inquiries after him had beer
useless The police also found that the cor
poral had disappeared on the very night be
| fore the robbery was made known. A connec
tion between the two facts appeared evident
A new discovery, however, destroyed this
conclusion. The letter from Rotterdam wa:
laid before the commanding officer, and he
declared it at FIRST sight q forgery. The hand.
writing was not Rughler's; all his comrades
asserted 1t, and several old company lists
| which Rughler was known to have written,
proved it to the satisfaction Of the Judge
Consequently, the letter was nothing more
than trick of some friend or accomplish OF
tho Blue Dragon to GberGte him from the
torture. This was the prevalent opinion, when
two new and very important witnesses, made
their appearance. They had no connection
together, nor were their statements the least
alike; the facts they brought forward, contra.
dicted one another In a measure, and which
| on the one hand, throwing light on the mat
| ter, on the other, they only rendered it more
obscure.
tradesman in the town, who was gsner.
al dealer, and lived in the neighborhood of
south OF Germany during the whole Of the
trial. He had just returned and been told of
the affair, when he voluntarily appeared be-
fore the police and made the following very
important statement: About the time when
the robbery must have taken place he was
still in tho town. The carpenter, Isaac Van
C, called upon him and begged him to
lend hm his boat in which he usually trans
ported his bales and heavier goods. The boa:
hnhi ha
near his warehouse, which was close 10 the
town ditch. lie had large quantity of sacks
to deliver at that time and could not spare it
Isaac, however, begged him very earnestly,
and stated he only wanted the boat for a
couple Of nights, and would return it to its
place in the morning On his inquiring why
he wanted it particularly at night, he replied,
niture Of some people who were leaving the
house. "By night?' the owner of the boat
asked. "Who leaves his house by night ?"
The carpenter replied with a cunning smile,
that the people were baukrupts, and were
going TO ''shoot the moon !' The owner was
indignant, and refused the use of bis boat
The carpenter however, quickly said he had
been in jest, and his intention was to 20 FISH
ing with his apprentice during the night He
b ad not told him his real object, for fear he
might not like his boat dirtied lie at length
yielded to the carpenters pressing entreaties,
and lent him the boat on condition that he
returned it again The next morning. The
carpenter kept his word faithfully. When
he went to his warehouse the next morning
at an early hour, he saw the carpenter and
his apprentice just fastening the boat. It
struck him directly that they had no nets or
fishing implements. He examined the boat,
and was still more surprised at finding il dry
and clean inside. He had, therefore, detected
the carpenter in falsehood. In the boat he
picked up parcel, consisting Of two silver
forks, wrapped in paper.
The carpenters frst statement had been
correct, then he had helped the ban krupt to
remove the furniture clandestinely. In con-
siderable anger at it, he put the forks in his
pocket, and went straight to Isaac Van c..
The carpenter, his housekeeper and the ap-
prentice were in the workshop He held out
the forks to them, saying: You left them in
my boat; suppose you used them TO eat the
fish you caught; hope they will agree with
you. They were evidently confounded.
The housekeeper first collected herself She
stammered that her N aster had really helped
some oIe to move. This was in itself no very
creditable action, and he presumed that their
confusion arose from their feelings Of shame
When he asked the name Of the person, the
carpenter said that he could not tell him then,
but he would explain to him afterwards. he
was silent, but inquired cautiously who had
| recently quilted the town, though without re-
| coiving any satisfactory information. His
journey to Germany had caused him to forget
| the matter, but now he had not the least
doubt that Isaac Van c. was the guilty
party.
The carpenter and his family were imnaedi-
ately arrested, and his house searched. They
found in it, with the exception of a few tri-
fling matters, all that was missed from Mad
anne Andrecht's. They were threatened with
| the torture, and at last confessed that they
had committed the robbery. On the morning
| when the discovery was made, master and ap-
prentice were among the crowd to hear what
reports were spread. The apprentice heard
the wool spinnsr's wife openly state that she
| suspected the Blue Dragon. He told his m as.
ter of it, and they determined on increasing
these suspicious by all the means in their
power. The apprentice soon after went tc
| the Blue Dragons to drink glass of spirits.
He asked for coal to light his pipe. While
he was going to fetch it, he employed his alb
sence to slip the souvenir behind the shutters
| Their unanimous confession Immediately OK
onsrated the Dragon and his family from the
charge Of his having committed the robbery,
but there was yet much to be explained. How
had Nicholas D-'s handkerchief been lost
at the hedge? How did the spill, made OF
one Of his receipts, find its way into the house?
The carpenter and his accompIices declared
that they knew nothing about it. Even when
| threatened with the torture, they asserted
their ignorance. The suspicion was excited
that other accomplices still remained unde-
tected. They recurred to the corporal's let
ter If not his hand writing, he might have
had it written by some one else, and was mixed
up some way in the affair, and his desertion
was evidently in close connection with the
robbery. During the carpenters trial, how
ever. a new witness Voluntarily came forward,
the schoolm aster of q village about two miles
from the town. He showed the judge piece
of paper, on which only the words Joseph
Christian Ruhier'' were written, and inquired
whether q letter in the same handwriting had
not been lately received by the authorities ?
On comparing it with the letter from Rotter-
dam, it was found that they were written by
the same person, aad the tchoolmaster gave
the following explanation, which materially
altered the whole affair:
In his village there was deaf and dumb
boy, whom the parish had given him as q
boarder. He had succeeded in teaching the
unfortunate to write, and he had brought it
to such perfection that he was employed By
many persons, even the burgomaster of the
village, in preparing documents A short