The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-03-27
LEGAL INTELLIG ENOH.


w.
1t will be recollected that on Saturday last an
application upon habeas corpus was made for
arrested while stand ing in a crowd about the
office OF the Receiver OF Taxes, and was COM
mit,ed TO to prison sS for ninety days as g proies-
but he had not been known to nave conn mitted
theit wi1hin Han, I'VE years Toe law was argued
Honor Judge Ludlow gave the following able
decisions
The relator has been arrested under the pro.
visions OF the act of Assembly OF the l3tn OF
March, 1862, relating To the summary arrest
and conviction of professional thieves, burglars,
the econstitutionalIty Of this act of Assembly
was settled by our Supreme Court In Byers vs.
Common wealth, Wr 03, and 1t only remains
for the Court 10 give, us IL M, mas already % gone,
law as will practically effect the ob ecG Intended
TO be accomplished by the Legislature.
We ought not, IL is true, so TO strain the law
as TO make IL opprt ssive, nor should we evisce
rate IL by too technical a construction. A fair
Interpretation is all that can can be asked for,
and we ought not to grant more.
We assume at once. In the language OF the
Supreme Court, that the ofense Is not being
reputed or professional thieves. burglars, or
pickpockets, but frequentng q railroad oepoI'
ifthe magistrate is satisfied, by sufficient tes-
timony, that the prisoner before MIN was az OF
near one of the interdlcted places named In the
act, he may deal with him as the law directs,
provided the accused visited the place for an
unlawful purpose ,
What shall be considered sufficient testimony?
and in answering 1t, 1t Is evident tnat escn case
must depend upon the peculiar facts developed
In IL, and 1t is Impossible TO adopt general
rule which shall be intlexible. A pickpocket,
whose business it is to work with his hands,
NAV be Justly convicted upon one set of facts
and burglar and common thief upon another.
Take the present case as an illustration. A
man, known TO be q pickpocket, is found at the
edge ofa crowd with q companion, in front of
the office Of the Receiver OF Taxes, at time
peculiar province of pickpocket is to plumber
by stealth with his hands? Is 1t nard to believe,
from the very fact that The prisoner was in
place peculiarly adapted for the successful prac.
t1ce OF his profession, that his OBJECT was un.
thsmse,yes Me snfcient @ IestimoSv To- eonvnce
any unprejudiced mind? II the authorities must
delay action until an overt act is committed,
then the law Is a dead letter. and may as well
be wiped out of the statute BOOK.
The vice of the argument pressed upon us,
with much force and ability. consists. as we
think, in rejecting the facts surrounding this
prisoner as evidence of his intention. Prove to
that he stands in an amphitneatre, with his
amputattng knife in his hand, and his patient
reclining before him upon table-and, in the
absence of all conflicting testimony. viii IRE.
sistibly draw the conclusion that an operation
lis about to be performed.
The fact is no man can be reached by this law
until IL appears that he has adopted criminal
course Of life as profession; and when one sees
lit to defy the law nabitually, the law In turn
wisely believes that the appearance of such a
man at spot peculiarly adapted Tor proies-
But 1t is argued that our construction de-
stroys individual rights and renders repentance
We admit that II we are driven to this result
our con nclusion must be wrong, and we have
therefore carefully considered the subject. and
cannot escape the conviction that the fault IS
in the argument and not in our conclusion.
The person arrested has mis- day in court; he
may prove that his business was lawful that
he has abandoned his Infamous profession, and
It is also possible even for thief to throw
himself upon the protection of the police or of
citizen; to declare that he has visited an In
terdicted locality for q lawful purpose, and to
give notice of the fact. AS, for instance. in the
event of the death OF relative at distant city,
he may declare on entering depot or car, II
am q professional pickpocket, but at present
such a notice, he viii not be molested by the
sasnories and his feioW' travellers VIII un.
person. Both will thus be protected.
This decision shifts the burden of proof upon
the suspected person after the Common wealth
has produced prin1d Jacie evidence and this is
right, for The man VINO deliberately breaks into
your house at night, steals, or picks your
understand that the law is not a cobweb to be
destroyed by breath, and that we cannot
escape, or even reformed men not to do
''works meet for repentance" In the evil
dence produced In this cause we see much
TO convince us of the propriety of the convic-
ton before the magistrate. but In order to do
exact justice, as the evidence Is that the relator
has been arrested (although said to be profess
sional thteD but once in five years, and was
then discharged. we will permit him to prove.
on Saturday next. that his purpose in being on
the outskirt of crowd at the office of the
Receiver of Taxes was lawful one, or that he
has reformed, and that neither here nor else
where does he practise his profession. and is
an honest man.
When he does this it will give us pleasure to
protect him, and thus prove that a reformed
man has nothing to fear from this statute. II
he falls to do This, he will learn that law
which may indeed be severe is not TO be de.
stroyed, but that 1t will be enforced, and that
no one will be to blame but the man who per-
sistently wars upon the welfare OF society, and
against whose depredations the public must be
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-Judge Peirce-
George Henderson, August Clemens, John M ur
hyd shy ada ,i,h rin, iha nronriatnr oS the ,awern
southeast corner of Broad and Poplar streets
testified that some fifteen fellows came into his
place and demanded liquor, which was refused
them, and they seized the bottles, and Miller
drew blackjack. They broke glasses bottles
and pitchers, causing him serious pecuniary
loss. The witness recognized each defendant az
On GROSS examination he said that when he
refused the liquor they went behind the bar 70
several witnesses testified that three or foul
days before this alleged riot, these prisoners
. went to tavern In Poplar street, above Ninth,
and ordered drinks, but refused to pay fol
There were also indictments charging the
prisoners with malicious mischief, and Miller
with carrying concealed deadly Weapon-the
blackjack.
The defense proved that about the time laid
Tor the riot Erford was seen several squares
away trying TO sell q ball ticket, and it was
argued that II the prosecutor mistook the
identity of one, Il would be unsafe to convict
upon his Identification of the Others The Jury
rendered verdict OF guilty upon all the
charges, and convicted Miller of assault also
The Judge sentenced all OF them to the County
Prison for one month for the riot; Miller to an
additional month tor carrying the blackjack
and the bill charging malicious mischief was
held over. They were also required to give
security In $500 to keep he peace
John Craig. who was several days since con
Hieted OF forgery, was sentencedsto the Eastern