The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-11-04
LEGAL INTEELIGENCH.
Mary Mohrman-Trial Of John Hanlon-More
About That Confession.
Court Of Oyer and Ierniner-Jttdges LudLo,0 and

nIary Mohrmnn,Trial nan, i Of John Manlon-More
Peirce.
The Court this morning resumed the trial OF John
9th of September 1865. After the close OF our re-
Joshua Taggert were examined, and their state
ments were merely the groundwork upon which the
confessions Of Hanlon were to be laid.
The first witness called was Alderman William r.
Heins who testified as follows-I am an Alderman
of the Nineteenth ward; my office is at the north
east corner OF Fifth and Berks streets, about three
squares from Hanlons house, l paid visit to him
In the County Prison on the Path OF December last
him in prison at any other time at that interview
did not make any threats or promises to induce him
6. K Tryon sworn have been detective onlcer
of this city contnuOyB bly, since June, 1858; In De-
cember, 1859, and Seuary and February, 1870,
visited HanOn in prison about three times, twice in
company with George Smith and once alone; the
first was December 27 with George Smith cannot
give the date of the second, but think it was in
March the third was last Sunday afternoon; at the
first visit used no threats or promises to induce
Cross-examined-I don't know whether he was
aware that was an officer; told him the purpose
OF my visit; did not tell him that we Intended to
time ever saw him; gave him an article Smith
saw me give it to him; we went pre- pared with 1t;
we went there with purpose; We knew what was
the real purpose, but 1t ran into another matter;
that other matter was not then the real purpose;
should think he was impressed With the fast he was
in the presence of two officers; my manner was
pleasant but not persuasive; did not question him
%ech tas arce asked brUngnt @m Rs him. osr
tainly questioned him as an officer questions
man from whom he wishes TO obtain information;
my manner was neither confidential nor sharp; it
may have been Official; we went to Mr.. Perkins and
asked him for reliable, truthful man into whose
cell to put Hanlon and he referred us to Dunn; 1t
was not HaDlOn but Dunn that saw last Sunday
saw Hanlon but once; did not say to Dunn thaJ he
would be examined, but Mr.. Smith and told him
he ought to be called up in court, but not that he
would have q pardon.
Re-eXamined-The article we took to Hanlon was
a hat; we put it on his head the Information we
wished to obtain from him was in relation TO another
matter than this.
The preliminary examinations heiDg now closed
Michael Dunn was recalled to prove the confession.
Mr. Hagert made the offer of proving the confes-
sion and statements made by tie defendant to the
witness between December "a, 1869, and March l,
1870.
with all the force he could command, yet II, as the
matter stood, the Court had made up its mind as
to the competency OF the witness, he would acqut-
esce in the examination being made now, and post
pone his argument until he came to discuss the
The Judge asked Mr.. Brewster II he didn't deem
IL advisable TO state the reasons upon which he
wished the testimony excluded.
Mr.. Brewster said that, briefly his reasons were
the peculiar situation OF the party appearing reek
ing with crime and infamy, and the condition of
Hanlon, who he was and where he was at the time,
for one OF the earliest English statutes, one OF
Edward III. made it penal for any prison keeper
with the humane maxim OF our law. that man ac-
cused OF crime should not be allowed to accuse
himself, he thought were amply sufficient reasons
stand.
Again. If this man offered to plead guilty in open
court the judges would not allow 1t, but would
direct him to enter plea OF not guilty, and appoint
counsel for his defense; then would they allow
these volunteer detectives, eager, and this low,
wicked, wretched convict 70 do In the lonely cell
what they would not permit the accused himself TO
do in This hall OF justice-detail his own admission
OF guilt?
prisoners counsel to the competency OF this witness
Undoubtedly raised most important question: not
only Affecting this particular case put also the WnOe
criminal jurisprudence. A whole day has been con-
| sumed IL taking the preliminary testimony TO the
very point which is new under discussion III, IN the
| course OF that examination, our minds had been
| made up that the prisoner was entrapped, whal
would have been the result We do not now say; oul
after reviewing this testimony do not that he
was entrarped induced ~ promises or threats. but
NOslers case decided that q confession made by q