National Republican., 1883-10-27
JUDGE WYLIES CHARGE.
His Address to the Jury in the Case Of Film
dor and McElfresh.
The History Of the Case Shows That
There is Something Wrong.
Whether II Can Be Cured by the Courts 70 Will
Require Legislation is Problem.
A Verdict of AcquitiaI the Natural Result
OF the Charge.

the criminal court on Thursday in the case Of
McElfresh and Finder has excited so much
comment that it is given in full below. A
prominent citizen said yesterday that If ~
wos good law all the cases against the ex-
detectives might as well be abandoned, and
the labors of tho citizens committee to free
the city from the depredations of thieves and
corrupt officials will have been in vain.
Judge Wylie said:
Gentlemen of the jury these two defendants arc
indicted for receiving stolen goods, knowing them
to be 0 ws n
pears to me that there are some facts in this case
which arc established by the evidence beyond all
controversy. One of these facts Is that Mr. JOS.
Banner had this watch: that he wes the owner Of
1t, aud that 1t was stolen from him.
Another fact IN the case Is not disputed that the
thief was a fellow by the name Of Smith or
Another undisputed fact is that Smith sold this
him for the watch $50. The conclusion from the
law on these facts would be inevitable, irresistible
as to Donohue, that Donohue was receiver Of sto-
len property Knowing Il to have been stolen There
cannot be any doubt os to Donohue. We find this
watch in this way In Donohue's hand. Then we
stolen that Baumer ADVERTISED his loss aud offered
q reward of S100 for the return Of the watch and
within two days, after that appears,
II seems that McElfresh called at Donohues and
made some reference to the advertisement Of
story, not much was said about It, According 10
McElfresh's story, there was no transfer of the
possession Of the watch from Douohue to him.
According to DonOhue's story, he (Donohue)
handed over the watch to McElfresh for the pur
pose OF enabling him to secure the reward. You
dence
You have on the one side Donohue, an acknowl-
edged thiei. who seems 70 glory IN his business
this case, and McElfresh the defendant the other
You will have to decide on the weight OF evil
II Donohue never delivered that watch to Nc
Elfresh, In your opinion, you need go no further.
you are OF opinion that Donahue lied as TO that
matter, or, If you have u reasonable doubt as to
the truth of his statement on that point, You need
not trouble yourselves with the rest OF this case
terminated with Donohue and went no further.
But Y is claimed that Donohue is worthy Of be-
iSt that he I @ In, In some IN
point in the case Here is the heart OF the prose-
cution right at this point, and it is for you
confidence in the truth of the statement of
this witness, Donohue, as will lead YOU to find
so y SsS Ss these STs S9
after NICE fresh, the only other witness who cjuld
testify TO IT, has sworn that there Is not word Of
that point, or II you have reasonable doubt rs to
the truth of Donohue's statement upon that 70 ut,
You need not go further-you are bound to find a
II, however, you should believe Donohue, and
disbelieve McElfresh as to that point, then the
question arises. whether the surrender Of the
stolen property by Donohue to McElfrcsh amounts
to such a receipt of the stolen property as would
knowing 1t to be stolen, Justify you in rendering
Now what is the situation? The law requires
that where stolen property is received with o
toindictment, 1t must be with the inten ton of
screening the thief, helping the thief.
hue % SeeVe %cEesh i regard ES SfsS point
erts was traded IN to ScEffesfh By pon6sSs, @
whether McElfresh received tho watch for the
purpose of helping the thief If McElfresh re-.
ceived 1t merely for the purpose Of restoring the
Swier had advertised to give for the return Of the
property, then, think, there is the absence Of
that motive which Is necessary in all such cases
The history OF this case. / may say, without 60
ing further into the facts shown. must convince
WRONG. Whether 1t be wrong that can be cured
or not; whether 1t be an evil which the courts or
the law can reach or not is a problem When
men lose their property by then, OF course they
are anxious to get it back. And. while 1t is a
crime to compound felony: while public Interest
his property would allow It to go, without trying
TO get II back, and look only to the detection OF
the thief, yet It is fac. that the best people ~
society are not quite so sublimated In public
spirit as to reach that point. The first impulse Of
man who has property worth 81 900 or $4,000 is
but it is the first one The next is the detection
of the thief There is some selishness in tnat, be-
cause the man feels an tndgnalion, resentment
against the p rty who has robbed him.
And there is another feeling about that, that II
is the public in crest 10 have the thief detected
get il back and they advertise reward for It, and
say, "no questions asked" What is the result OF
that? The consequence Is thieves get TO know
that men who lose their property By theft will pay
for It's return. That makes market for the stolen
property. Wherever there is demand for service
piled, and what are called fences spring up.
These fences are private markets established II
10 sell their stolen property. These are well
known among detectives. 1t is the business of the
detectives to know wnere they are and who are
concerned in them. 1t is their duty. But they
spring up, aud when mans property is stolen
the rst place thief goes is either to pawn shop
or toa "ience." He meyer has any trouble in sell
lug the goods He sells 1t, of course below the
market price. A watch worth 500 would be sold
for $780, That is the result Of the conduct of those
high toned gentlemen who own watches, &C., ad
vertsing rewards for the return OF their property
when 1t is stolen. AS long as rewards are offered
for the return ofstolen properly we VIII have thes
from such a one tue thief waits for the reward
waits until he sees the advertisement. He cannot
go aud secure the rev ard unless he chooses to
sumo the risk OF running himself into the peni
tentiary. The "lence" man has tho stolen prop
erty knowing IL TO nave been stolen after he ha
purchased IL; but If he were 70 go and return tht
property himself, why he might be arrested as tn,
receiver OF stolen goods, knowing them TO hav'
been stolen.
There is another consequence that arises from
that,
There q another class of industry that has been
started IN the community, in which quite mum
ber are engaged They are the persons who stant
between the receiver of the stolen property anC
the man who has lost his property. These are The
men who IRE the go-belweens; they are very often
am sorry 10 say-at least thut is the Impression
Official detectives who are engaged IN that busi
ness, and more especially private detectives.
As long as these parties negotiate with the re
celver of stolen goods aud the owner, It Is clear
that under the law they are not liable as receivers
of stolen goods. If q detective engages in tina
business, he Is undoubtedly false TO strust.
Itu private detective engages in that business a
general thing he IL very apt also TO be corrupt
It's business, however, that grows. 1t appeals
TO the avarice 1t appeals 10 thelove of money lha
ing IN that business is more Objectionable on III
part of the official detectives is this: That place
them on the wrong side in this controversy be
tween the commission OF the crime and the deteC
tion oft. They ought TO DO on the side OF the de
lection Of the property, But when they engage IL
this commerce with the "lence' men, assist tn
''lencG men in disposing OF their property, in gel
ting rewards, and sharing rewards with fence
men, In sharing the profits, then II becomes 10 III
Interest of The detectives that crime should be com
mitted that crime should be increased becaus
the more crimes of this CHARACTER that are com
milted the more property Will be given 10 th
"fence" men; the more rewards that are offeTe
and received the moro is the pro III OF the detective
increased.
80, that It will inevitably result must result, IL
this: As long us human nature is what we know 4
is among men of this kind, that the detectives
whose business 1t is TO protect the community trou
the commission OF crime, are The men who Initial
the robberles and commit the crimes, SO That the!
may participate in the profits.
Whether we can break that up or not, either b
the power of the courts or new legislation, is
thing that is TO be tried Certainly there ough
10 be some means established by tho law ana car