The New York herald., 1860-12-08
Court or Gen ., al Sessions.

Before Recorder Barnard.
A PENNsYLvAHIAN "sHAvKD" OF 5000 IN
SHAVING SALOON.
DEC Tho only case tried BY the jury to day was
. charge Of grand larceny preferred against three
Italians named Antonio and Leopold Gustave Auto
MO Lavno, and, a win 90 BY narrative of the
circumstances, the peculiar and sting
Leopold Gussvel "a youth, whose appearances indicates
refinement and inteigence), demanded separate trial.
and WAS defended by eminent legal counsel The evi
derce for the prosecution showed that the defendants
were employ cd In the hardessng aud shsvipg saloon
under Pattons Hotel, Of Green wch and Warren
streets that The 2lst Of Jane, Mr. James Walsh,
resident OF Penosy vana and guest at the above hotel
entered the saloon for ~ purpose Of getting snaved and
object thoroughly accomplished before he lef
the premiees for while ha Undergoing that ph, sica
operation the comfortable little sum Of 5000 In bans bs
taken cut Of his coat pocket The In whc,
the larceny per peraed Ingenious, aud
. waning 70 frequepiers OF such establishments Tho
defendant, who removed the supenoous beard from Mr.
duty, requested him 70 remove bis coat, shiss be did
and kept hts eye upon oh lie he occupied the bar bers
scat, the mirror rsfectns the objects hapging upon
the rack The defendants suPpscting that the
rymsn had considerable money 10 his possession,
the great question vas how could the treasure be
sbstracted nom bis pocket before he left the ssoonS
Without Mr. walsh's Instructions Tho broor proceeded
10 shampoo his cranium, and 10 doing administered
plentiful supply soap which obsourcd hs sight and In
order relieve the unfortunate vi, hs conducted
10 dressing bureau by, ard (Ss is alegedby the
prosecutien) while bs compainant thus engaged his
pocketbook SIS ahsuacted from the coat Bat II WAS
conenoed aud prop ry too by the coansel for the
fence, ths, -oven that the defendant trial
prefent AID 'beyerss could not have perpeirsied
tho larceny; and guilty of COY crime he should have
been indicted for receiving stolen gt-s The g-nsecr
tion 'aed TO Eto~ positively that tho
saloon, but assumed that there o,sprscy on
part q all the oefs pdants 10 Mr. wash and ths
theory was established by rrong reamstants evidence
II SHOWN hat soon after t,r. Watch missed his
pocfctbook when Gu.iavcl and the other BARRIERS
we're arrested, 3e5 Of TIE money found secretei n
toe lining Of his boot, and that when searcned he
depied having eny monfy his person Witnesses for
tho defence proved that tae young mans chsraoeor
ro-d bat th's strong Circumstance, coupled with
tie TACT that Mr. wssh iierthed two Of the bus and
the of proof show whre prisoner obtained
NE money he got ~ bonestv, gvsrthro~ tho presamp
ton of rnocence shch his good char scier would
established. which would have resulted IN hts scqutai
Tho Rcf rdsr 10 hts charge, clearly sho scd tho dnsr
between the crime or srsnd larceny and that
cclvips stolen goods party could bc oonvictcf ~
arcepy be vas II colluson with Others, ntnouxh he
might p0i have taken physical part 10 the
OF he orcnce, and " arrested after lacsry
perpeiraed with the proceeds IN ts possess0p the %
Inferred that he The th.ef unless no satgac
accounted 70 the jury ~hsn and whore he the
money. To convict Of the crime o. receiving
the larceny NUT art be pIete, and such
The fact IN the rrefCnt care the prisoner GUILTY o. sry
criminal oGen &C. tbouh hc convicted q grand larceny
rbe jury had not srfeci upon verdict before the
hour OF a,JournmsnI