New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-07-18
rur EXAMINATION ENDED.

,n,c +ha friends of the arrested Wal-Street
brokers who were present III the IolnDs Iohoe
Court Yesterday when the examination OF LAW
renee r. Jerome IT,. Edward NJ. Patchell ana " III
lam McGibbon was continued. were Lawrence IT,
Jerome and Mr.. Bevan. Of Guy, Beyan & Co., Lon
don the employer of Patchel. Inc case was
summed up In behalf of Jerome and Patchei oy
Ambrose II. Pnrdy. He began by citing authority
TO show that the finder of lost property had the
rght TO ret ain il with n Of obtaining reward
II has here been discussed. said Mr.. Furdy'
whether man has right to hold properly 'naV ho
has found for reward. The lost securities "eio
found on Saturday afternoon. Ii was after
banking hours and Mr.. Jerome did not
know whose securities they WERE IL lie
did he had right to hold tne"i'
But we are not sure that he did know. AS ne was
ntox Gated the presumption is that he ala not 10
could not be told by an examination whose stocks
they were; the name of the firm of G. d. and ). ii.
Leverich was upon the envelope as well MS that OF
| Rravton Ives & Co. The latter offered liberal
reward so that the finder entitled to and re-
ceved It, Torture the facts OF the case INTO whatever
shape. it can only appear that the defendants
simply held the securities with view OF obtaining
the reward. The offer Of compensation for the
safe of lost property creates the right 20 hou
| {. 1t may be said that they intended to convert
the securities but person cannot be convicted on
| Il
| fortune thrust into his hand. Many men have re-
marked to me that if the securities had fallen into
their hands they could easily have converted them
| could take them to-day and, notwithstanding that
tbe transfers were stopped, realize 500, 900 III less
| than two hours. Jerome was drunk; he
| didn't seek to convert the securities; ne
! simply retains possession OF them III the
hope of reward And he tells a number OF his
friends What he had found. Is that the conduct OF
n theft If be had intended to steal Brayton Ives
q Co. would not have been in possession OF their
property to-day. Mr.. McGibbon took the stocks
from Mr. jerome with tie understanding that he
was 10 deliver them to the owners As soon as
myself came home went to Mr.. Jerome's father.
who said at once /: Bring him to me; take the
stocks back to Brayton Ives & Co.; no thought OF
a reward From that time until eight hours later
every effort used by us to aid the detective In
securing the missing property. Why did not Mr.
Jerome 90 ont of the country If he desired TO ap-
proprate the securities Because he was honest.
| Ninety nine persons out of u hundred would not
have taken so good of them. MIR. sullivan
may say that all did something wrong; but say
Mr. Jerome did nothing that Is not above CRITICISM
Now then, for Mr.. Patcheli. If the young me- m
tended to steal why did tney 60 to look 10r MI.
McGibbon and then on his not Den aG bSumo,
whom jerome had never met before ana did not
know. If be had any Intentions OF appropIlatlng
the property would he have gone to Mr. MccilDDon
After The securities returned to him by Nc
GDbon he felt that he didn't want his name CON
nected with the matter. He was afraid to take
them to the owners: and finally thought that he saw
his way out Of the difficulty if he should send them
ANONYMOUSLY by mail. When be was arrested ne
said They are Brayton Ives Il Co.'s securities; /
| know where hey They are IN TIN box al my
Office" That is not the nature of thief We supposed
when the securities were returned to the owners
and temperance lecture had been delivered TO
young Jerome that the matter would be ended
The only thing blame Mr.. McGlbbOn for, whose
case leave entirely in Mr. SulIivan's hands IS for
his midity in not taking the securities to Brayton
Ives ~ Co. BY giving these Young men thelr good
name, your honor. you would be dong an act OF
justice"
Algernon Sullivan followed in behalf of Mr.
McGIbbon. He said he wished to present the
as if he acting as the District Attorney as
well as counsel for the defence.
"If were the District Attorney" he said, lin the
light of the evidence produced, wouldn't approve
an indictment l should blame anybody for the
arrests. The fact that the bonds were held came to
the knowledge of the police, and Dir. Metcalf had
right to bring those who accused into court but
: 1 do not think the affidavit should have charged
felonious intent" .
"Well. it is no matter about thar, replied Mr.. Sui
: Ivan. at should not have been so .worded. What
the idea promulgated that the finders of property
have right to hold it. Admitting that the duty
of the finder is to return the property the
without looking for q reward there is nothing in
this case to give it tho name OF larceny. There
h. must be a wrongful intent to take the property TO
G hold permanently. After looking at alkthe circum-
stances it most be judged whether there any
wrongful intention. Mr.. McGbbon knew nothing of
to contradict the statement he has made. Take all
: of the statements and they can be made TO harmon
lie. The question is, Did they intend 10 appropriate
t the property There shines out above all that
= 1T was Mr. McGibbon's intention to return 1t. He
. is man of family, and went home and told his
wife about the matter man who is thief does
not 20 and tell his wife that he has gone INTO league
n with the devil His conduct Is only reconcilabe
o with the statement that he took charge of
: he could communicate with the owners.
The next morning he was uneasy and
he returned them to Patchell. lie suggested to him
that they should be returned immediately Patched
nervous ana delayed carrying out his intention
of acting on tins advice. soothing himself with the
d idea that he cond send them back through the
mail. Since all the evidence has been put iii the
case, think, has assumed different aspect from
what ithad at the beginning. i do not violate my
conscience saying that do not believe that there
is evidence to show that there was ielonous intent
Mr.. Dos PaSsos presented the arguments in the
case in behalf Of the prosecution.
will cODine myse IT, he SAID, to the discussion OF
the law and the facts. My duty is 10 show that the
facts sufficient TO warrant the commitment Of
= the to the Grand Jury. When N IN finds
Il someting on the highway 1t Is his legal and moral
r duty to return to the owner. Nor is the question
complicated by the matter of reward. Nearly every
= State in the Union has had similar Here is
condensed statement OF the law on the point In ques
q | tlon:
y pick them up without returning them To him; but
man not knowing the owner can The doctrine, there
ne about them any marks or otherwise learns
q facts by which he knows who the owner is, yet will
- gully Of larceny; otherwise not.
The point in question is did these men felOnOusl
| appropriate the securtiesi What are the cireum
| stancesf Are We To assume that the boy delivered
the package without any remaTki They
{, claim to nave found it; but the boy found it
q, And before they obtGined il they must hay,
=, used deceit The next fact is that ther,
't was the name of the owners upon the envelope
Patched was broker, and knew that such los
would be the rum of many firm In the stock broker
r age business The pout OF the case IS that it wa
ia their duty to return the property aud not doing
s. the offence rs complete What ~ honesty Does II
take time to hatch out honesty Take the telegraph
boy. Ii was Spontaneous in HIM Does this belonl
g. 10 you, slrI" he said, addressing Mr. Sand. ID wa
n told to Inspector Byrnes and Mr. Metcalf tina