National Republican., 1883-10-26
ACQUITTED.
A Verdict Of Not Guilty in the Case Of Finder
and MCElheSh.
General Notes from the Different Courts
What tho Record Shows.

The trial Of George W. McEl(resh and
Charles +. Finder for receiving stolen prop
erty was finished yesterday by the acquittal
of the defendants. As in the Coomes case,
the charge of Judge Wyle to the jury settled
the case in favor of the accused. The story
of the present case was published in The
REPUBLICAN yesterday morning.
The case was resumed yesterday morning
for the defense with the testimony of w. G..
Brock, former superintendent of police; o. L.
Pruden, assistant secretary to the President,
and w. II. Crook, one of the Presidents ex-
ecutive clerks, all of whom testified to the good
reputation of McEliresh.
Charles w. ONeal, who was night clerk at
police headquarters when Banner reported
his loss. testified that Banner offered to give
800 reward, and that he was not instructed
to advertise. There were no detectives pres
ent The witness thought Baumer was under
the influence Of liquor at the time. John =.
Rice, II. f. Wecdon. and Oliver Hoge also
testified that there were no detectives present
when Banner reported his loss.
y II. X. Elliott, Benjamin Charlton, and Maj.
Thomas p. Morgan testified to the good repu-
tation of Finder and the latter testified that
McElfrosh's official record was good.
An attempt was then made to show by
William Nicholson that the witness Donahuc
that Donahue had said in his presence that
ho and little Johnnie had put up job to rob
Judge Wylies house. All the questions upon
these Subjects however, were objected to and
ruled out, Judge Wylie remarking that he
would take care of his own house. William
=. Ward was asked If he had seen Banners
watch in Donahue's possession, but that ques-
ton was also ruled out. This closed the case
for the defense, and the only evidence in
rcbuttal was that of w. l.. Cash, who testified
that he was with Baumer when he repor ted
his loss, and Banner was not intoxicated
Mr.. Taggart addressed the jury for an hour
and the defense announced that they sub
mitted the case without argument, which
again shut Gov. Wells off from making u
speech.
Judge Wylies charge virtually acquitted
the defendants. He said that if tho jury be-
lieved McElfreshs story that he had talked
with Donahue about the watch, but had never
received it from him, then that ended the
case If they believed the story of Donahue
on the other hand, who was an acknowledged
thief, that he had given the watch to Nc
Elfresh, who had brought it back again, be-
ing unable to get the 800 reward, then it
would be a question whether this was such
possession as to make the possessor, McEl-
fresh, receiver of stolen property in the
sense meant by the criminal law. 1t
was the opinion of the court that it was
not such possession. If there was evidence
that there was conspiracy between Dona-
hue, McElfresh, and Finder. before the
crime was committed, to get possession of
stolen property, give it up for the reward,
and divide the reward, then all three were
equally liable, since the possession of Dona-
hue would be the possession of all. There
was evidence in this case to excite suspicion,
but not enough, in the courts opinion, to
warrant conviction. The judge took occasion,
while delivering his charge, to say that there
was something radically wrong in this prac-
tice of detectives acting as go-betweens for
owners of stolen property and the receivers
and thieves, but whether the wrong was to
ho cured by new legislation or by the courts
he did not say. He condemned any official
detective who so acted as false to his duty,
and said that private detective or other
person doing the same thing was undoubt-
tdly corrupt. As long, however, as men who
had been robbed continued to offer rewards
tor the return of their property so long would
tl'c evil exist. This practice of Offering re
wards made market for stolen property, and
made the keeping of "fence" profitable
business. 1t would be better if the men who
had been robbed would submit TO their loss
and not offer rewards with mo questions
asked" for its return, but human nature was
not yet sublimated up to the point of doing
this.
The jury were out twenty minutes and re-
turned with q verdict of mot guilty" Nc
Elfresh and Finder shook hands very
heartily, and two or three people in the court
room showed desire to applaud but were
promptly choked off.
The other eX-detective cases will probably
not be tried until next week.
GENERAL NOTES.
Henrietta v. Davis yesterday filed bill in
equity against Mary Treakle to compel her
to complete contract made with plaintiff
by j. w. Starr, late brother of the defendant,
for the transfer of lot 5, square 776
The suit instituted by w. w. Kirby against
Chief Justice Cartier for SANDER and $4,000
was yesterday dismissed by order of the
plaintiff.
certificate of election was filed by the
Fifth Presbyterian church of the following
trustees Elias Spear, Il. r. Senior, Il. a.
Seeley G. w. Brown, S. Green, G. Ii. Read,
and w. NJ. Boyd.
An assignment of d. G. Hatch, trading as
d. G. Hatch & Co.. to w. b. Gray and s.
Maddox, has been placed on record. All the
goods, book accounts, &C. pertaining to the
business of artistic furniture carried on at
9i1 + street, is transferred for the benefit OF
the creditors, no preferences being made.
The stock is put down at $4,000, the book &C.
counts at $267.24, and liabilities at So, l2609.
THE RECORD.
Court In Genera, 7erm-Chief Justice Cartier. Jus
hcss Hagner aud Co1.-Richard ii. Porter VS..
Stephen b. White argued and sub.
Criminal Court-JudQe lpWie:-Charles Z. Film
der and George W. McElresh, receiving stolen
property; verdict not guilty; ord to rest. prop.
EQUITY Court-Judde JdmeS.-Callnghnn VS.. Eng
lish sale rat. nisi Temple vs.. Worthington; sale
rat. finally United Nut. Safe lns. Co. vs.. Post;
ref. to and. ord Phillips VS.. Wallidge; aud. 5 rpt
rat. Whitney vs.. Christmas; sale ord and j. S.
Edwards app. trus. To sell Browning vs.. Grant
dis. of bill ord Shehan vs. Dooison; Elizabeth
DAVIDSON app. ,gdn. ad lit. Holtzclaw vs. Ford
sale by trus. ord
Circuit Court-Jud0e MacArthur-VRn Riswicl;
VS.. CIssel; jury respited. Kirby VS. Cartier; bill
dis by pm, Smith VS. Bolden; a. tH. ss. until
mo. heard Roche x Co. VS.. ONe judgt, cont
Gait Bros. VS.. Fitzgerald; judgt by dtt Cahill vs.
Boldus; on hearing.
NEW SUITS.
s762. Virginia S. Riley, guardian; petition tc
sell infants real estate. L. Williamson solicitor.
s763. Henrietta n. Davis vs. Mary J. Treakle; to
compel specific performance OF contract. HagneI
Il Maddox, solicitors
2ISjS Roche & Co. VS.. John o'NeiI action fol
Sl7O.53. X. Fendall, attorney.
COURT CALL
Court in General JGrm-Judge Cartier, Cor, dnt
udgner.-Same as yesterday.
Equity Ctnut-Judge JdmeS.-No assignments
Cticult COurt-Jatge MdcArihur,-Nos. 10, "A, 75
7S 81, 81, IS, 81, aud 96.
Cyimmal tourt-Juci9e WyHe.-Nos. l74, N,9sC
1906 and 5000.