The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1880-11-18
DETECTIVE DEVICES.
What devices NAV detectives use


DETECTIVE DEVICES.
What devices may detectives use?
Honest men and good citizens have
differed earnestly in opinion over the
methods employed by Mr.. Comstock
and the Society for .he Suppression OF
Vice. The same perplexing question
arises-in somewhat different aspects
in courts of justice. The reports of q
couple of years past show half q dozen
careful decisions. There has been some
conflict. But the tendency, on the
whole, is towards q two-fold rule like
this: A detective may use devices and
even deceptions in obtaining evidence;
but he must show a complete offense
done by the accused, independent of
any participation by the detective.
Sometimes the distinction may be very
nice. II a shop-keeper puts q marked
bill in his money-drawer, along with
ten plain ones, and his clerk steals the
total, finding the marked bill upon the
clerk in good evidence that he stole the
others. Here q complete theft of the
ten plain bills, independent of the de-
vice, is shown. But if man puts his
handkerchief in his pocket with the end
projecting and goes among street boys
a-hshing for pickpocket, and catches
one who bites at that handkerchief, a
Judge will be apt to say: He did not
steal your handkerchief, he took it by
your leave.
'.Decoy letters were drawn in ques-
ton upon trail about thirty years ago.
1t has been a common practice when
letters are missed over any particular
mail route to put marked money in an
envelope and send it through the doubt
ed Office, or route, and watch where it
disappears. II the marked money can be
found in the pocket of the clerk, it is
considered good evidence that he is the
thief. No one ever doubted that it
would be good ground for disinissing
the clerk; but in q case where the clerk
was put on trial for stealing the letter
his counsel argued that the epistle was
not really mail matter, for it was not
honestly intended to be carried, but
was sent that it might be stolen on the
way; therefore taking it was not robbing
the mail. But Judge Belts said that he
considered the letter. If the outside was
not marked in any way to indicate an
intent that it should be stopped, was
entitled to the same protection with
any other letter; it was intended to go
through if the clerks would let it.
Several instances have occurred in
which q persons private papers have
been obtained by the detectives and
produced against him upon his trial.
Here the Judges have generally said
that If the papers are lawful evidence
of the commission of q crime they may
be used to prove it, no matter how they
were obtained. One of these cases
arose as early as 1922, when the right
of visitation and search of vessels on
the high seas was 80 much in dispute.
LA Jeune Eugenie" was searched,
and papers found on board led to
her being prosecuted as a SLAYER; the
lawyers for defense argued that the
search was unlawful, and therefore the
papers ought to be ruled out. Not long
afterward, in Massachusetts,, a man was
suspected of selling lottery tickets, and
by means of q search warrant q num-
Der of them were found concealed in
his house; his lawyer contended that
the search warrant had been issued
and executed contrary to law, and
therefore the finding of the tickets ought
to 60 for nothing. Quite recently, when
q firm of merchants were prosecuted in
Bangor for smuggling, and their papers
and account books were produced
against them, they made the same OBJ
lection: showing that the evidence was
obtained by an unjust and illegal search.
In all these cases the Judges said, in
substance: Here is an accused person
and here are papers produced to show
that he is guilty. II they show guilt
he must be convicted. no matter how
they came here. How the district
attorney or the detectives obtained
them must be left to their own con-
sciences; or if they have broken the
law they may be sued for doing so.
Deceptions practiced to obtain con-
have been treated in much the
same manner, provided no false prom
ises or threats were made. These are
never allowed. But if person con-
fesses freely and of his own accord, the
Judges do not reject the admission be-
cause some deception was practiced in
it. In Alabama, not long
ago, negro was suspected of having
laid bars across q railroad track by
which . train was wrecked. In hope
to elicit confession a detective ap-
preached him, insinuating that he (the
had been defrauded by the
railroad company and wanted to get
even with it, )" which he proposed to do
by throwing train off the track. He
asked the negro where would be a
good place. The negro answered, de-
scribing one. The detective asked how
he knew, and the negro said because
he had tried it. and he then told the
whole story of his own crime; which
was afterwards narrated against him on
his trial. The question whether it was
proper to receive a confession thus OBJ
tanned was afterward argued in the
Supreme Court, but the Judges said
there was no objection.
Instances where the detectives pro-
mote the commission of an offense pre-
sent more difficulty. They have given
rise to some very nice distinctions.
the purpose has been simply
TO frustrate an intended offense. Some
times the purpose of the detective in
the offense has been to bring
the suspected person to punishment
Such cases often afford the counsel for
the accused materials for very good
defense. In Texas, where great herds
Of cattle roam at large with little to
secure them to their owners except q
brand of the owners monogram upon
hem, . man was suspected OF 1ncreas-
ing his herd by the cheat of changing
The marks branded upon his neighbors'
cattle. To bring him to justice a detec-
i've entered his employ as herdsman
md continued with him for several
until one day he saw him
change the peculiar mark of another
owner ON q beef into his own. The
,ulprit was brought to trial on the
detectives testimony, and the law
yer objected that the detective
was an accomplice; but the Court said
hey could not esteem person an ac-
,omplice who participates in an act
simply in the capacity Of q detective
md to ascertain the truth of suspicion.
There was curious attemptin England
a III. lo;~ sDlsxk;-- TEa l.xx Thore