Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1871-11-03
(Communicated.l
The WeIch ~ Lombard Case
Robbery OF r. II, Miller q
Co.'S sufc-A Card from th
Attorneys Of the Delcnda nts
PrnnYsrrna. October 30. 1871.


EDrToH JouRSAL: Without in the least de-
string any controversy in regard to the case OF
the State against lombard and Welsh, accused
OF stealing the pocket book Of +. Il. Miller a Co.
and tried at the last term Of our Court, II seems
not unreasonable to ask few lines II your space
IN correct an unjust inference that might be
drawn from vour article NJ last week. A dis
puie through the columns of newspaper Is
very apt to leave both parties little worse of
than when they commenced, but sometimes
hasty and inconsiderate remark " permitted 10
pass unchallenged and unqucs'ioned may work
IA more injury than its author Intended, and en-
tail consequences very much to be deplOreti.
The people nf wo1d county look ~ the law for
the protection Of their lives aud property. Ger
tainly II /, not desirable that the knaves and
thieves of the country should be led to believe
that our Courts Of justice are frce, and that
crime here will be suffered To riot unchecked.
This would be an inducement direct invita-
tion 10 every scOundrel to m ke our county the
theatre Of his nefarous operations. But the
officers Of our Courts are able to protect them
selves and have not called for vindication.
Your article however gnes much farther TO ar
ralgn the acts of public officials. You siy that
the guilt Of Welch and Lombard was known 70
their csunsel-that the stUlcn money was forth
coming after the trial, and you very plainly in
innate that the Attorneys Of the prisoners re-
ccived part Of the st'len money, knowing II "a
have been stolen. This, II true, would render
the said Attorneys guilty, in legal sense, nj
well as in n moral point of view, of an atrocious
crime, punishable by imprisonment in the peni.
tentiary, aud deserving Of the contempt of all
honest men.
such statement cannot be permitted to pss,
unchallenged- to be silent might well De cDn
sidered rs equivalent, IL not to q confession nj
guilt, at least TO most reckless disregard nj
, public opininn. Indeed II Is very doubtful
whether a simple correction of the error Ough
to he deemed sufficient, and whether an nli
7 vidual so assailed, ought not in justice to him
, self and family, to sternly demand redres,
, through the civil and criminal Jurisprudence o
the State. Without stopping just now tn con
slider that matter, it certainly becnmes the plair
duty Of the Attorneys for the defendants ~ Civ,
, the facts IN the public.
Lombard and Welsh were arrested for the Al
legged crime Of taking pncket book coniainin,
some 1850 from the safe of +. II. Miller < ca
, in Perrysburg on The 25th day of July last. Il
about one hour after the money was lost, thcy
were placed in jail stripped and most h nrnngh
: " searched. A few dollars in money, a couyi
/ OF keys, jack-knife and few similar article
, were fourd upon them. Nothing belonging tn
X. Miller l. Co. was claimed to have been dis
covered. The only evidence against them wa
0 that Robert Miller saw a man resembling Inm
bard in the lot back nf the st.ire soon o. ftsr la
mrney was taken. But Robert Miller il nea
sighted, and immediately after the loss Of a.
D money lie pointed ont another am, whom h
' caused t be arrested and searched the ma
he saw back nj the store-and the man so hrS
identified by Robert Miller, as the one seen b.
> him in the rear Of the store, did not al all re
$ sembIe Lombard. This was the entire substac
a Of the inculpatng testimony. The Judge toll
, the Jury to look at the evidence fairly and can
u didly as reasonable men. and If from the evi
Q denee they were left in doubt as 10 the guilt q
the prisoner they must render verdict Of &C
A quittal The Jury with great unanimity and i
very shsTt time came into Court with q reT
d diet OF not guilty. After his discharge Mr
Welsh asked to have = FIVE dollar bill changed
n This is all the money that was produced ate
the trial by the prisoners. So far from believ
ing the accused to be guilty, their counsel wer
s fully persuaded Of their innocence. Messrs
q Peck 4 Miller were over and over again assure
By one Of the counsel Of the defendants tha
from statements made By the accused and cor
roborated from outside sources, their entire id
= nocence seemed beyond question, and that a con
a vic,ion based upon such slight and unsuiicier
evidence would be thing tO be deplored. Th
accused never offered to return a part OF th
d money il they were let OR /: they would hav
been as willing 10 let Messrs. Peck 4 Miller hav
= a certain sum OF money, as to have paid II ov
To Attorneys TO defend them, but only ipon III
basis that .heir innocence was conceded. G
j course the prisoners paid their counsel a reason
l. able fee for defending them. Attorneys can n
more work for nothing than any other class
; men. BY their professional labors they ear
e their bread. But nothing could be farther froI
y the truth or more signally unjust than the in
A piled charge contained in the JOURNAL Of la
week. that the thieves shared their Illicit gAir
J. with their counsel. Nothing could be mpI
false than the statement that after trial the stole
. money was produced. The whole thing ca
only be characterized ass most miserable an
70 malicious fabrication. Respectfully yours,
HENRY II. n0DGE
q Of counsel Tor defendant