Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1882-03-02
Before Commissioner Zwart-Mr
Wright Discharged

The United States VS.. Stephen C. Wright.
Charge: Counterfeiting coin. Information
before L. S. Commissioner Zwart. Emerson
and Edgar for the defence. The information
contained two counts, but the Commissioner
consolidated them.
S. S. Vaughn testified, in substance, that
he had known the prisoner three months,
and that Wright had voluntarily come to
him, and offered to MAKE counterfeit money,
and told him that he Lad made both coin
and greenbacks; and that, by the advice OF a
| Government officer, he gave Wright counte-
nance and aid in the matter; and thai, at
time and place agreed upon, Vaughn being
! in the same room, the L. s. Deputy Marshal
and the Sheriff of Iron county made de-
scent and captured Wright in the act OF
making counterfeit coin.
! In regard to the first point, the testimony
of Vaughn stood alone, but was not shaken.
In regard to the second point, his testimony
was not only mistaken, but was squarely
supported by the testimony of the u. S.
| Deputy Marshal. On the third point, his
| testimony not only stood firm, but was
squarely supported by the Deputy Marshal
and of the Sheriff of Iron county.
| Quite number of very respectable citizens
testified for the defense, but their testimony
did not reach the controlling facts.
| The prisoner gave under oath an explana-
ton which did not explain, and it went TO
pieces under the cross examination by the
Commissioner.
| The prisoner was zealously defended by
| his attorneys. The case occupied Thurs
| day afternoon and Friday, and received the
most earnest and careful attention of the
Commissioner, whose decision is appended
below:
The defendant is charged that he did, on or
| about the 31st day Of January, 1882. in Iron
| county, in the Eastern District of Missouri,
/ falsely make, forge or counterfeit, and will
ingIy assist. il falsely making, forging, or
| c0unterfeitng, half dollars of the silver coin
of the United States. which were then and
there in the resemblance or simlitude of sill
yer coin coined at the mint of the United
States: with intent to pass. utter and publish
or sell the same as true. and with intent to
defraud. A second charge against him is,
that ne did, on or about the 11;h day of Feb
ruary. 1882. at the same county. make or cause
to be made, minor coins OF silver or other
metals, or alloys of metals, intended for the
use and purpose Of current money, in the re-
sembiaRcc of coins of the United States.
From the testimony OF SilaS Vaughn, who
was the only witness who testified in relation
to the first charge, 1t appears that the only ev-
ideuce IN support thereof were the defend
ants statements to Vaughn. Vaughn was
subjected to.a long and searching cross-ex-.
animation. but the weight OF his evidence was
not shaken, although on some points he was
SOM ewhat confused and contradictory. De-
fendant's counsel insist that Faughn's teeti-
mony should be entirely discarded. also. be-
cause he Is an accomplice; but 10 this eau
not assent. for that he was not an accompiice
is evident from'all the facts in the case. The
first question then ariSes-taking the testimo-
of Yam rbr in IN 10 first cl,a
as unimpeaehed aud true--is this sufficient to
hold the defendant to answer on that charge:
Mr.. Greeneaf, IN his work on Evidence. 1st
Vol, sec. PA, states that the evidence of YER
bal confessions of guilt as TO be received 1ritb
QreGt caution, on account of the danger of
mistake, and from the misrepresentation of
witnesses. the misuse ofwords, the failure of
the party to express his own meaning and the
in6rInity of memory: also, from the zeal
which so generally prevails TO detect Offend
ers, and the strong disposition in the persons
engaged in pursuit of evidence. to rely on
slight grounds of suspicion. which are eXag-
gerated into sufficient proof. together with
the character of the persons necessarily called
as witnesses in cases of secret and atrociouS
crime; all these considerations, he states,
tend TO impair the value of this kind of evil
dence, and.sometimes lead to its rejection in
criminal cases. where, in civil actions, it
would have been received. And again, Sec.
217, Mr.. Greenleaf states that in the United
States the prisoners confession, where the
corpas deficit is not otherwise proved, has
been held insufficient for his conviction; aud
this has been held as the rule by the Supreme
Court of Missouri, in Robinson Us. State, 18th
Mo. Rep, 592, and in State Us. Scott, 39th
Mo. Rep, 424, and other eases. As to the
first charge. the offence is not otherwise
proven than by the very indefinite statement
of defendant as detailed by Vaughn. This is
not sufficient, and therefore the charge is not
sustained.
As to the second charge, Yaughn's testimo-
ny as to facts preceding the arrest, is also the
only evidence in support thereof, and he does
not testify to any material facts which occur
red after that time; but these facts are prov
en- by other witnesses, and, together with the
circumstances surrounding the transaction,
the night time. the shaded windows, the dim
~ burning light, the delay in responding to
the effieer's eaff. the mold and metal found in
defendants pocket and on the fioor-all tend
TO throw suspicion on the defendant: and,
taking the testimony as true, the question is,
does il show the commission of an offence
punishable under the laws of the. Uuited
States: The Courts of the United States
have no coTnmon-lsw jurisdiction; their pow
er to punish is confined to such offences as
are made 50 by the statute law.and the charge