Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-06-04
MICHAEL SNYDER'S CASE.
SOME FACTS WORTH REMEMBERING;

recalling as evidence in the question
whether or not justice was prostituted in
Michael Snyder's first acquittal and his
subsequent release which was the ''loei-
cal y result Of the first. The italics arc
ours
j. Hay Brown.
Il first heard of the case against Michael
Snyder on the day it was disposed Of; j.
w. johnson brought it to my notice he
tod me there was a case against one of the
Snyders he said it was case of political
persecution got up by Pyle he said the
boys could not be convicted and told me to
go and see Eshlemon and tell him that they
ought to oe let so /; they 'cere the best trorksrs
IN the Eighth card. and As THEY WE'RE
GOOD REPUBLICANS AND THE BEST woEK
ERS IN THE WARD AND WE WE'RE ON THE
EVE OF AN IMPORTANT ELECTION THEY
SHOULD De LEFT co | saw Mr.. Eshleman
and he told me to examine the case Pyle
told me he knew nothing of the case to his
own knowledge he pointed out Green
await and Barnhart, who told me they
knew nothing about the case, as did the
other witnesses who were sitting with
them :; IAen told Mr.. EsAleman and he
asked for a rerdict Of net gritty :: johnson
also spoke to the cOurt and said rerdict Of
not gritty should be taken. as there was
nothing i'll the case and there could be no
conviction.
Constable W. c. Pyle
Testified that there We're eight witnesses
in court who had been subpGraeG when
the verdict Of mot guilty !" WAS taken.
L. T.. Snyder
Testified that he was i. witness for the
commonwealth and ,rns not examined bY
either Brorn or Eshleman aJfer TIE truf
bill scds found i; WAS in court the day the
verdict was taken, but was not called to
testify"
Daniel brown
Testified that he was witness and WIS
net examined By Broom or Estlea.an =: RoJt
7smpleton testified to the same effect.
Judge Livingston
Testified that the case was disposed of
by verdict of not guilty on EshlemanS
representations to the court that his col
league had examined it and found there
was nothing in it, and on .N'. Johnson's
stnte ment that he had a complete defense.
J.W. johnson,
In his testimony inter ala, said l went
to Brown the evening before the trial AMI
told him of his promise to- Snyder. and
asked him to make it good he said he
could fix it the next morning he said it
would be right, and Eshleman and Brown
then went before the court, and upon the
representations the case WAS disposed oI,
| having nothing to do with it told n
of this to MIR. kieiler: after the case waS
disposed of saw Brown: | asked him
whether he knew what | meant when |
spoke to him of the mol. pros. he said he
did Brown then said that Jack Hiestan,i
told Mr.. Esheman that lie, being district
attorney, had better be careful or he might
get himself into the penitentilry was
present in court when the case was disposed
of, but don't recoIlect whether it was by
nol pros. or by verdict; think at the
time Judge Livingston said to me some
thing about the case ; put on Il bold
front. thinking had 4 good case. and sai,
| was ready for trial and had my wit
nesess here.
MIR. r.. l.. Snyder
Testified inter alta as follows: Il hal
4 conversation with Eshleman on the day
the verdict was taken ; | heard the case
was over and asked Mr.. EshIcman, who
said it had been disposed of for want of
met him again on Duke street he said !:
CASE HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF, ARE GIVING
ALL THE CREDIT TO Hay BROWN | toId
him could not help that if it wOuIl do
any good would send them word.
District Attorney EshIonar,
On crOss-examinatiOn. testified inter oliu
as follows: Il told E. Z. Snyder that |
UNDERSTOOD THE SNYDER BOYS DID Eor
RECOGNIZE ME- AS COUNSEL FOR THE COM
MONwEALTH IN THE CASE OF MICHAEL.
SNYDER. AND THINK | DID TELL. HIM To
REMIND THEM OF IT.
At that point his cross examination was
interrupted by the settlement of the case.
That conclusion of it was effected though
the friendly Offices of Judge Livingston
who used his influence with both sides to
effect 4 settlement.
What was Manifest.
Therefore the Lancaster INTELIIGENCER
said
1t is painfully manifest that the most
of all possible efforts WAS made
by Mr.. Brown to get the information he
says the district attorney set him for: and
that that officer was strangely cOmplacent
in deputing to another, and that other the
political friend of the accused, the dis
charge of his own duty in the examination
of witnesses.
Twice during District Attorney Rosen-
millcr's term prosecutions for political OIL
fenses were disposed of on the cases being
by the commonwealth Of
ficer to the court, and on both occasions
the INTELLIGENCER called the attention of
the court to the imposition practiced upon
it and upon the community. In neither
case did the court make any investigation.
Now again it appears, as the fairest Of
deductions from the sworn statement Of
the representatives of the commonwealth,
that political considerations secured an ac--
cused criminals release the only alterna
tive to this inference being the suppOsition
Of degree of stupidity in the prosecuting
officer to which he will not confess. Will
,he court act ?
And other newspapers joined with its
demand that the court should take cOgni-
lance of all imposition practiccd upon it
,y it's officers.
No such action was taken.
The Second Acquit;al.
Michael Snyder was again indicted and
It the January quarter sessions, 1880, was
ried before Judge Patterson for selling
iquOr on Sunday. 1t was testified by sew
ral witnesses that they had bought and
frank beer at Snyder's saloon on Sunday
within two years, but previous to October,
97S. The complaint, Indictment and rec
,r1 ,,f tho cr,,rt xv,ro I,fforoJ 70 cGnuv %b,t