Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-03-09
LOCAL INTELLlGENCE.
THE PRISON CASES.

Leonard Schoenberger Discharged After =
Hearing,
Tho charge of larceny preferred against
Leonard Schoenberger, by DIX. BurkhOld-
er, was heard before Alderman Spurrier
at 10 o'clock this morning, and attracted
to the alderman's office quite crowd of
interested spectators. E. X. Martin. esq,
appeared for the commonwealth, and j.
Hay Brown and J. l.. Steinmetz, esds.,
for defendant.
The commemorative testimony was, in
brief, that the defendant, after having
served a term of imprisonment in the
county Jail, was discharged on the LIST of
March that during part OF the time he
was imprisoned, ho acted as assistant to
the " boss baker, Mr.. Ehman that on
the day before his discharge he and Ehman
were in the bath house, and Mrs. Burk-
holder, wife of the prison keeper, who was
in a room above the bath house, heard the
defendant and Ehman in conversation
There being a stoveppe hole in the ceiling
between the two rooms, Mrs. Burkholder
was enabled to hear part OF the CONVEX
sation, which was carried on in q rather
suppressed tone of voice. She heard Ehman
tell defendant to take the satehel with
him when he left the prison and the de-
fendant said he would, but that ''the
blamed thing would mako too big d
bundle After something else had been
said which she could not hear, tho hour OF
o'clock next morning was fixed for
Schoenberger's departure, and he asked
Ehman to be at the back gate at tho time,
and the latter said he would. Mrs. Burk-
holder also heard the jingle of money, and
Schoenberger said "now, if had your
$3.50 would be all right" When the
baker came out of the room, he blushed
when he saw Mrs. Burkholdcr. and bid
her the time of day.
In consequence of certain suspicious en-
tertained by him Mr. Burkholder had
given orders to the underkeepers to let him
know whenever any one asked for tho key
to the back gate. On the first Of March,
the day of Schoenberger's discharge, the
key was asked for and Mr.. Burkholder
was notified. He went out into the yard
and saw Ehman there. On going to the
gate lie saw Schoenbergeroutside lettering
about the prison; he ordered him to leave,
telling him if he did not do so he would
have him arrested. Near the gate on the in
side Mr.. Burkholder saw two barrels, filled
apparently with potato peelings and other
offal from the prison. Mr.. Burkholder
upset one of the barrels and in it he found
a cloth covered satchel belonging to the
baker. The satchel was taken in charge
by Mr.. Burkholder, who had Schoenberg-
er arrested for larceny. Among his effects
was found key which fitted the satchel
and the satchel being unlocked was found
to contain three boxes, each containing 100
cigars, and two boxes, each containing so
cigars. The cigars were identified as be
longing to the prison. It was Il part OF
the duty of the defendant to carry out the
offal from the prison. Mr.. Burkholder
| acknowledged that he never saw the
satchel in Schoenberger's posse ssion !;
! never saw the inside of it until he opened
it and found the cigars.
Mr.. Ehman was called as witness by
| the commonwealth, but as there is a case
against him before Alderman Wiley,
charging him with the same larceny, his
counsel would not permit him to testify.
Underkeeper Albert MUIR corroborated
Mr.. Burkholder as to the finding of the
satchel in the barrel of potato peeliugs.
Commonwealth closed, and without Of,
fering any testimony for defense defend.
ants counsel asked the alderman to dismiss
the defendant, as the prosecution had
failed to make out q prima facie case. 1t
had not been shown that any larceny had
been committed; it had not been shown
where the cigars alleged to be stolen mad
been taken from; and even if they had
been taken it had not been shown that the
prisoner had taken them or that they had
ever been in his possession, and the com.
monwealth's witnesses had themselves
shown that no larceny had been committed
the cigars not having been taken away.
Counsel for the commonwealth asked
that the accused be held for trial by a
jury, but the alderman dismissed him,
holding that prima facie case had not
been made out.