The daily gazette. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1874-1883, 1876-10-18
OREGON JUSTICE.
FOUR INNOCENT MEN SAID TO he I'M
PRIsoNED FOR LIFE.

A Washington special to the Chicago
Times tells the following:
In March, 1872, a stage-coach carrying
the United States mail and Wells, Fargo
u Cos express matter, was attacked by
armed men in Baker county, Oregon.
The driver, Ed. Edgar, was overpowered
and thousands of dollars stolen in curren-
cy of the realm and gold dust. Shortly
after four men were arrested for the crime.
They were: Frank Toinpkins, well-to-do
rancf man, Nathaniel Hanson, VIM. II.
Bramlette and John w. White. The ar
rest Of these men caused considerable
cormen in the locality where they were
known, as each, especially Tomkins bore
good regulations. Their trial was rushed
through by the judge and the then district
attorney Gibbs.
A very slight case of circumstantial evi-
dence was made against them, which with
the positive instructions from the judge in
duced the jury to bring ginaverdict Ofguilty.
The crime was peculiarly bold and law
less one, and the mere Indictment of the
men in the excitement attending the rob-
berry was proof enough of their guilt to
the minds of half the population. T he
| men protested their innocence, and en-
deavored to get new trial, but the judge
refused to grant one. They next petitioned
for pardon.
Their petition was signed by nearly all
of the legal fraternity about Portland, but
the judge and district attorney refused to
join in the petition. The papers went on
to Washington. George III. Williams
then Attorney General, referred them
back to the judge and district attorney,
bosh of whom wrote decidedly adverse re-
ports on the question of pardon. Williams
then refused to recommed pardon to the
President.
The prisoners did not give up hope,
however, but with the aid of friends on
the outside began search for the real
criminals, as their exposure was the only
thing that could be used for their own
release. Among these friends on the
outside was Edgar, the mail carrier who
from the first had declared that the men
arrested and convicted were not the rob-
bers. Suspicion directed Edgar to three
men named Shepardson, Darnell, and
Phelps, the two first well known desper-
ADDE'S. In the fall of 1872 Edgar made
affidavit on which warrant for these
three men was issued, but for some rea-
son the marshal refused to serve the war
rant, although the whereabouts of the
men were known.
In March, 1874, new district attorney
came into office, and by the advice and
request of some of the best citizens took
: an interest in the case. An alias warrant
| for the three men was gotten out, and
through the eXertion of the new district
i. attorney it was served on Shepa rdson in
/ California, where the United Stat es judge
l gave him up and OH Phelps in Washing
g ton territory, last March. Darnell has
l never been found. Phelps confessed. He
did not do so on the promise of immunity
, but said it was his first crime and for
nearly four years he had been sufferin Q
more than he could possibly have done in
prison,
A grand jury was impaneled and
on the 18th of March, Shepardson, Oar
nell and Phelps were indicted for the
crime which innocent men were under
life sentences for committing. The eye
witnesses, who, on the former trial, could
not identify any of the four men as the
} robbers, swore positively to Shepardson
and Phelps. The judge in his charge,
J however, held that the former verdict
: was an acquittal of the men now being
tried, and directed the jury to brin g in
verdict of acquittal on the ground that
, the prosecution of Shepardson ct. al.
was barred by the statute of limita-
ton.
; This was the first time this point had
: been raised. 1t was shown in the evil
dence that an attempt had been made for
. the arrest or Indictment of the real cul-
prits before the expiration of the two
years, and that the California judge gave
up Shepardson, overruling the point as to
the statute of limitations. The jury, after
being out thirty minutes, returned with
the following verdict:
We are of the opinion that the defene-
dants are guilty, but under the instruc-
tions of the judge, that they cannot be
punished.
When this was handed to the judge, in
great anger he tore it up, and told the
jury to go back and bring in verdict of
not guilty which was done.
Tho E,onj,,n ToIonru1lL 1iSnutas tbn