Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-04-20

Yesterday afternoon, in the case OF John ii.
Murphy, indicted for larceny from l. l. Boone, In
which case MT. Cook filed motion 70 Quash, Judge
wylie overruled the motion. The trial was re-
sumed this morning. and L. l. Boone and Lieut.
Arnold testified for the government j. Skiy-
ington testified as TO the manner In which the
been indicted, which he declined to answer, but
admitted he had given bail: had not made an
arrangement TO tell what he knew IL the case
was not pushed against him; his statement
was given voluntarily, first TO his counsel
TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENDANT.
Joseph II. Murphy testified In his own behalf
that he has resided here forty-three years; that
his original business was butchcring and dealing
In cattle for number OF years. He was present
at the arsenal grounds on the day in question: saw
Witness first made a statement and they asked TO
see the cards. and afterward they sat the ground
putting up 800 Boone then put up his watch and
witness put up 500. This game was all over
when clark came up. 1t was game OF cards and
chance, as any other gambling game, with the
chances In favor OF the dealer
MI Cole, for the defendant, offered a series OF
prayers that If the jury believe that Boone yolun
tarily entered into game In which there pos
sibiity that he might win, there was no larceny
ana there could be no conviction, and that the
testimony OF an accomplice must be taken with
caution.
The court said he could not grant the prayer.
The defence excepted to the ruling.
in the ss ne 70
game, staked his money and lost.
DECISION OF THE COURT.
The court said that bis views on three-card
monte were settled, and it was needless to argue
the case before him. He understood that the case
would go to higher tribunal He would oyerrule
all the prayers offered. The prisoner is indicted
Tor larceny and the property alleged to have been
stolen consisted OF 500 in money and watch
costing $3.50, worth now $3.50 or $l40 II the party
willingly gives up his property to another who
appropriates IL to his own use it is not larceny.
lhe time made use OF fraud to get it into his
possession, that is what the law considers larceny
II the owner commits his property TO
stead Of carrying out the purpose, does another
thing 1t Is larceny. AS general proposition a
man can do what he pleases with his own prop
chance, and ii he loses the party who
wins the money is not guilty OF larceny.
no chance, the party, in his opinion, is guilty of
larceny; 1t was obtaining money by fraud, and the
consent OF the owner does not relieve the winner.
quence OF the confederacy. the different actors
fall in at the proper time; first the stranger,
who falls in with the "stearer," and
the place where the assassination conspirators
were hung, and is there Joined by the Kentucky
dfoVer with his story or losing his money I'm Balt-
more, but making good Investment by getting the
cards, and they want to see the cards; the drover
loses his money, one OF the confederateS beat the
drover, and the drover won't play, but viii play
the Missouri gentleman the latter being persuaded
into the game, and when he agrees the corner
or another card is turned while he passes
his money into the hands OF one OF these
tnleying confederates, and the 'scarer" comes in,
claiming the fine, &C, while the money is in the
Stockholders hands, and 1T is for the man
nest purpose OF preventing the loser from
ma claim to his property He
lett the evidence to the Jury. III they
believe that MIR. Boone was induced to stake his
money on game OF chance and he believed it to
be such, and that there was no game OF
chance about it, but mere contriyance
10 OBTAIN his money; it was larceny or
nothing. The fact that the owner OF
the watch allowed the party to escape is not to be
considered as consent TO the party holding it. for
TINS TOOK place when the 'Scarer" came on. The
case cited was somewhat like this, but it did not
appear that the fourth man the Scarer came down.
he would not follow the hair-Splitting decision OF
The English courts, for every one knew that this
case was substantially one or larceny. He did not
want 10 see man unfairly convicted. but when
the facts show that man professionally followed
the business OF prying on the community he
would not strain point In his vlndication. The
defence said they would except to the charge
when the prayers were written out