The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-10-04
THE ENLISTMENT QUESTION.
The Hamilton Case-DecisIOn of Judge
BlatchfOrd-The Boy Held to Service
. Under his Oath of Manhood, Etc.

From the ~ Y papers ofto-ddy.
Batchiofd rendered orally his decision in aa@iitonS
He said that the traverse to the return Of Cen
guary enlisted into the of the United states,
appear to have been intended 10 raise the legal Gnes.
ton Of regularity and not the question Of the iden,
addressed to the question Of Identity
of April last and April g. and the petit
toner was arrested on August 2O and on eDarges
Island for trial, and is brought up this habeas
Individual Who was enlisted. Thongn traverse
does not seem 70 raise ths question yet as me testi
its merits. have examined carefully the testimony
Osborne and the only evidence produced by the pc
titoDer is his own deposition. HIS languase Is very
the enlistment papers the recruit swore that he was
The petitioner swears that he Is now ls, and has a
mother ving his father being dead and that he has as
was arrested there on August 20 lt is, therefore, 70
PhSdeiphia at the time OF this enlistment. There is
nothing in the case to show Glbi The question of
does not recoiect going the Office and does re-
SR6s enS te S hs PSS ee
shown to him; and he said he could not read
was his He was asked if he recognized Colonel
PARK whose nose name m id y InLee @ lines ssnea 70 the
was not e. listed before Colonel Park, and his an
| Colonel Park was sworn TOR the Government. and
looking at the petitioner he said that he recognized
there on April ]; that he the papers and swore
In bis charge till April when he deserted Then the
medical paper produced. and Colonel Park test-
fled that he present at the examination, and that
as far as he could Judge the recruit was perfectly
| clear. He recognizes Hamilton as the party who
swOre to ana signed the enlistment papers. Stl, If
but oath against another But in addition to that
there B the correspondence Of the petitioners personal
appearance with the description In the enlistment
| He is described In them as having brown eyes, dark
hair, and norid complexion and being ve feet seven
inches in height. He has brown eyes, dark hair, and
COUn " On ma he anna
to be five feet seven and quarter inches in height
very slight discrepancy. Another circumstance is
can hardly be the result OF accident. The recruit
! signed his name on enlistment In two places, and
alter the word 'Willam there Is period. Thatsame
period found In the same position in the signature
OF the petitioner to his petition and TO the In
the latter he has written out his MIDDLE name IN full
the word:L Lewis also, showing that that habit
of his, which is quite peculiar. and is
cumstance to STOW that the signatures made by
the same person. Moreover. the general correspond
Of the signatures is such that there room
TO doubt that they were 80 made. In view OF the
positive evidence OF Colonel Park the correspondence
of the signatures. and the doubtful character the
petitioners testimony, should have reasonable
doubt that the petitioner is the party who signed the
enlistment papers Moreover, In the medical paper
the Surgeon states that the recruit has cruclxlOn
stamped on his left arm, and petitioner admits
that he has a cruchXion his left arm with Vrgn
Mary on each side. Since the petitioner the one
who signed the enlistment papers, in which he swore
that he was weny-one years OF age. he was regularly
enlisted, and he must therefore be remanded.
Afler the rendering of the decision Lieutenant
Gardner stated to the Court that his attention
been called TO remark made by the District Attor
ney the day before, charging him with fraud, and be
wished TO say that he had not perpetrated any fraud
but had only appeared In Court for gallant officer
being himself an officer, ana that If it had not been
for the consent or conniYance OF the authorities
Philadelphia, that officer would not have been re
leased from the custody in which he was held.