The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-07-28
Engine Company 81 and tho Fire Come
missi0ncrs.
The STOOL PIGEON SYSTEM.

The STOOL PIGEON SYSTEM.
The Counterfeit Postal Currency Cnse-
Doyle Acquitted Under the Charge Of
the COMMUNICATING Proceedings, &c.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Before Judge Shipman.
July 27.-The United States o.. Michael Doye-The
rial OF this resumed this morning by Judge
Shipman charging the jury His Honor was quite en-
phatc in his denunciaton Of the stool pigeon system
employed to entrap the prisoner and charged the jury
in such pointed manner that there nothing left
for them but to bring in verdict Of acquttal, which
they did after few moments elaboration Annexed Is
the Judges Charge
The defendant stands charged with having in Es pos
session in this city quantity Of counterfeit fractional
currency, knowing the to be counterfeit with in
tent to utter the with fraudulent purpose There
are certain facts In the proof which appear to be unds
puted They these: The defendant was, the
18th Of December last, saloon keeper in Chicago He
sought by the witness Hartman who acting
detective police officer Chicago and by the latter
persuaded to TO New York for the alleged purpose
Of obtaining counterfeit money. Hartman put in
communication with the defendant through one Clark,
who though person OF more than doubtful character,
hoped by Of oonvcting Others TO obtain post
New York, arriving here the 10th of December On
the same train came Mr. Adamson, another detective
under whose directions Hartman was acting 1t does
not appear that defendant knew that Adamson was on
the train After arriving here defendant, at the sug
gestion OF Hartmann obtained from quarter about
one hundred counterfeit fifty cent fractional notes
street. and scerecd them with the knowledge Of Hart
man. under the carpet The defendant then arrested
by Adamson upon the information derived from Hart
man. and the bills seized These bills have been brought
into court Unidentified and proved to be counterfeit
After the arrest Adamson took the defendant to Washing
ton city, and there imprisoned him. upon what authority
does not appear and this trial It not necessary for
inquire There circumstance however, arising out
of the defendants imprisonment in Washington which
his counsel claim that he should have the benefit Of be-
fore you That IL, that while in the cell there
Robert Cross under the assumed guise Of prisoner,
placed In the cell with him, and remained there
days for the purpose of ectng testimony against
the defendant that as Cross has not been called as
evidence tending to show the defendants guilt OBJ
tanned From this 1t is argued to that the proba
bilites are that If defendant had been guilty Gross
who the defendant induced to believe was fellow
prisoner and sent into the cell and kept there
time close communication with defendant-woud have
elected some remark tending TO show that guilt.
His failure to obtain that Information is claimed
by defendants counsel O circumstance tending
70 show that defendant Is innocent Of this charge
/ have already stated to you certain undisputed
facts which appear in the proofs / now come to
others upon which II will be duty TO pass after
pal witness hstiHes that the defendant did not know
that he officer, but supposed he wanted the coun
tsreit money for fraudulent purposes and that was
with the intent 10 furnish to him to DO thus raudu
ently used that procured IT. that defendant carried II
in his hand that he might readily drop the police
should attempt 10 arrest them Now II you believe the
whole statement Of the witness Hartman you have
little doubt Of tho guilt Of the defendant. Your own in
togence has already discovered that the material point
Of the caseto wit the guilty intent OF the defendant
turns upon the credibility Of Hartman witness The
counsel for the defendant argues to yop that all the facts
that Tie defendant was acting with and aiding
Hartman In obtaining proof against others, and
especially against one Misencr, with whom the
defendant had an interview In the presence though not
in the hearing Of Hartman. There is no doubt that
before You can safely convict the defendant you must
substantially credit the Testimony Of Hartman The
defendant IA clearly made out
except by Hartmans evidence He passed no counter
felt money nor did he offer 70 pass any But according
this counterfeit money In his possession for the purpose
OF delivering 1t 70 the witness TO be used Improperly
accused The learned District Attorney has argued
which 60 . support in his Judgment, the cred I.
say It is question which belongs exclusively to the
jury. The reasons why you are asked by the
defendant to dfscredit Hartrnans testimony dis.
closed on his Cross examination After same hesitation
he admitted that he had been inmate Of State Prison
in Michigan; had served out part Of term there and
been pardoned out The witness first stated that he had
his recollection been accused OF any crime but
that Of selling liquor without license On being further
questioned he declined 70 answer whether he had ever
been convicted Of crime; and finally, after proper
suggestion from the District Attorney he admitted that
he had been sent TO the State Prison in Michigan but fol
what offence he did not say, nor was he asked Now u
he sent 10 the State Prison for selling liquor without
license, then his testimony Is consistent bat he was
sent there for some other offence, his testimony
Il
| stated twice that he had never been accused Of
any offence except that Of selling liquor without
| a license, 10 his recollection. That he should
have served term in the State Prison. and have forgot
ten even that he accused OF the offence for which he
was convicted, Of believe The jury are
TO carefully weigh his testimony both In reference u
what he stated and the admitted fact that he has beer
convicted Of some crime, the penalty Of which was i'm
prisonment In the State Prison, and say whether hi
statements entitled TO credit As have already init
mated his testimony forms very material part Of tho
case as presented by the government and on the ques
1 .~fo, Aantfg nntIt mimi III hr~vpV aas
all important In order, therefore, TO warrant
| conviction the jury must be satisfied beyond
\ a reasonable doubt OF the substantial truth Of
| Hartmans statement II is true that he II
| corroborated on several points by Mr.. Adamson
whose testimony Ia free from reproach or suspicion
any one H. therefore, important for you to carefully
weigh his testimony canddy, conscientously and free
from every irrelevant consideration IL was truly ant
forcbly remarked by the District Attorney That th
offence Of counterfetng Is alarmngly prevalent IN
large number recently sentenced TO the state Prison
This circumstance should lead jures in TO b
careful In scrutinizng the evidence and wherever thel
find proves the guilt Of the accused TO promptly ant
| fearcssly say No sympathy with the misfortune
OF the accused should ever @rcen him from the pun
| ishmcnt his guilty acts deserve For the perpetra
be Just excuse Such crimes conceived In frau
and deliberately executed. They cheat the public an,
rob the poor But every defendant must stand or fa
by the evidence adduced against him. and must be foun
guilty or acquitted according TO the weight ana credi
bity OF that evidence IT. In the judgment OF the jury
the evidence now before them proves the q fendan
| guilty beyond reasonable doubt then II Is their dnt
to ind m guilty; bat If II fails 10 satifiy them OF 81
guut beyond enable doubt, then tie defendant
entitled 10 the benefit that doubt aud to acqutta