The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-08-08
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

s,esVR ,ceoVRT OF QUARTER sEssIoNs-Judge Brew
yesteTdnS tGr Attorney @ Mann having len the city
Sless s is acting In place. prosecuting the
vile Hester Ter aud Elizabeth TrSet oolored we're charged
Belonging 70 FTeers igo 5%Sle cloths valued At s2
Vogdes sna sfa & we're living at service with Mr..
VSedas Ss,m OF wages % due them and Withheld Sy &r.
uRder claim Of TiESt there wSse s apparently taken
wSe6er % me ottense was larceny. The jury Teturned
UIick McAndress pleaded guilty to e6aFss 10 erGy o ts
InaIGGeny OF q rope fender belonging 10 the RasdinS
tSrae @eGad Company Sentenced TO County Prison or
money Mo and belonging @ ThomSs BGte
e week aTo & he was coming along sixth street with
he met Thomas Mccsln ana TOOK srin Fae % streets Rect
While they ing at the corner defendant
hey again went Into the street. aud sudse1Iy bs
felt s9'methng in his pocket. which followed BY
Thomas McClain gave him a jerk, so that his back
somebody TO go home with him. he said, mo- aud
went home al, alone & Unon arriving at mis- home he
gone. Several days afterwards he accused Lewis OF
the larceny, and Lewis threatened to Kill him for so
doing, but upon his repeating the accusation, Lewis
The defense offered evidence to prove that Mr..
Butler was SO drunk on the night in question that e
and also proved the good Character be
Verdict not guilty.
Of $40, belonging to Daniel Nolan. Mr. Nolan testi.
led that on the morning Of June a. he lett In his
Ssllolte,n Sslolen rom his pocket by little colored boy
Wlllldul blOCkets WnOm ne recovered some $50
The boy, William stocker, testified that as soon as
he had taken the money the defendant took him into
house and took from him two $50 notes.
officer William Green testified that upon the infor
nation of the boy he arrested Craig, who, upon being
questioned, told sever al Inconsistent stories about
the money. Verdict, guilty. Sentenced to County
samuel Ramsey was charged with escape, in break
Ing and leaving the Philadelphia County Prison while
In the custody of the keepers He was taken to the
shall and was confined as United States prisoner to
await trial IN the United States Court upon charge
Of May 70, 1866 he and another prisoner, named
Murray made hole In the third floor Of the prison
and escaped by means of rope from the roof On
the Goth of December following he arrested in
this an oleDse was read and explained to the jury
Mr Charles Brooke, for the Defense raised the point
Court for want of Jurisdiction. He arrested by
the authority of the United States and was in the
custody Of the Government for offence against its
laws; that he was not In the custody OF the State
able in a State Court; therefore his escaping from
County Prison Is not United States prison: :
of the convenience offered by the city" and such an
escape as this was an otfense perhaps against the
all events while this prisoner was confined under
been tried and dsposed Of il would not Oe proper for
this Court even II IL had Jurisdiction OF this to
authorities had decided as TO The course they would
pursue concerning the prisoners case.
The Judge said that his principal dlhcuty In this
case was as 70 the law regarding the punishment Of
which would have been inflicted upon conviction Of
the charge upon which the prisoner conned: and
in this case inquiry into the punishment that
would have been imposed BY United States Court for
o1ense against the United States laws, would pro-
baby be beyond the jurisdiction of this Court Re
serving this point, the Court Thought the Common
wealths case made out.
were offered in evidence showing that the defendant
arrested by the authorities of the United States
and that he was awaiting trial in that Court; and
also the commitment Mr. Brooke argued TO the jury;
also that the law in like this required that the
original commitment of the defendant he proven Just
and legal before conviction of the charge can be
had, and that after an imprisonment OF fourteen
months trial had not been had by the United states
commitment was lawful or otherwise. And 1t was
the humane duty of jury to inquire into this matter
and ascertain whether the defendant was Justly or un
justly deprived of his liberty for If the confinement
not proven just he has perfect right to regain
his liberty.
held that the law was, that If man. confined for
indctabe onense broke jail he guilty of misde-
and it was only the duty of the jury IN In
uure into the question whether he did break the JAIL
and not whether the original commitment was lawful
unlawful It had been proven that the ofense for
which the defendant was confined indctable
and that he had broken JAIL therefore the plain duty
of the jury was to convict
The Judge charged the jury that II they believed
the testimony offered by the defense as well as that
offered by the Commonwealth, there was doubt that
the defendant was lawfully committed by the United
authorities and they had also positive evidence
of the defendants having broken jail. Therefore
II they believed the witnesses their decision OF the
question OF fact was easily arrived at AS to the
questions of law raised, they for the present
Overruled. Verdict guilty.
A motion in arrest of Judgment for new trial was
made.
There being no other business ready the jury were
discharged until to morrow morning at ~ O'Clock,
and the Court adjourned until tomorrow morning at
lOo'clock.