National Republican., 1883-10-24
THE COURTS.
Verdict Of Not Guilty in the Case Of Ex-De-
teCtive Coomos.
Other Legal Business Transacted Ycster-
dny-Whnt the Record shows.

The trial of John w. Coomcs the ex.dotect-
i've, for receiving stolen property, using his
position as an officer TO cxtort money, and
violating his duty by noglecting to report to
his superior money received by him, was fin
ished yesterday by the ncquittal of the de-
fcndant. Judge Wylio's charge 70 the jury
settled tho matter, and there was scarcely
any dispute about the facts. The defense
offered no testimony, and had none except as
to good character, and Judge Wylio thought
it unnecessary to introduce this. The
evidence was that in August, 1881,
the shop of man named Charles
Rittcrshoior was robbed of 5000 keys,
worth $3.50, and few knives and files.
Rittershofer reported the robbery to the police
department. Coomes asked him how much
he would give to get them back, and said IL
would cost $50. RittcrshOfer refused to pay
it and went away. Afterward Coomes met
ono George McCauley, and offered him 80 to
get tho keys. McCauley got them, took them
to police headquarters, and then Rttershofcr
went after them. When he took them he
gavo Coomcs $40 Afterward Coomes gave
McCauley his So at the Theatre Comique.
Coomes never reported at headquarters that
he had received the $40
McCaulcy, who is now q prisoner at tho
jail, was the only material witness examined
yesterday. He testified that he met Coomes,
told him he could get the keys and would do
it for SO. He afterward went to Emanuel
Johnson's house, took the keys from its cellar,
and took them to Coomes, who gave him 50.
"Do you know who stole the keys?" asked
Mr.. Taggart.
"Yes"
"Who?"
IL don't want to say anything to hurt my
self. j am going to be tried pretty soon, and
/ want fair trial"
Nothing that you say here will prejudice
you on your trial." said Mr. Taggart.
"Well, then, / stole them"
did you have any conversation with
Coomes about them before you stole themW
mo, SIR"
Mr.. jackson, for the defense, said he did
not care to cross examine the witness. His
testimony was received under an objection
from the defense, which the court overruled.
The defense proved by Maj. Thomas p. Nor
gan, formerly major of police and afterward
commissioner, that it was the custom for
owners of stolen property to pay the usual
expenses of detectives in recovering it, Mr..
Taggart addressed the jury for the govern
ment. and that was all the speech making.
Mr.. Jackson said he would submit the case
without argument. This shut off Gov.
Wellss speech. After a largo number of re-
quests for instructions TO the jury had been
read by counsel, Judge Wylie decided the case
by his charge.
The judge said that the defendant was to
be tried by the law and the evidence; he was
not to be hunted down by senseless passion
ate clamor. If he was found guilty, he should
be convicted without fear. Thre were were
three indictments against him-one for re-
ceivng stolen property knowing it to be
stolen another for using his position as an
officer to eXtort money, and another for vio-
lation of duty in failing to report money
that he had received. The court then gavea
definition of the crime of receiving stolen
said that if Coomes was found to be
acting as Rittershofers agent in the
matter the charge could not be sustained. He
WAS unable to see particle of evidence that
Coomes took the goods for his own profit or
for the purpose of eXtorting money from the
owner. The charge that he received stolen
goods was absurd. On the second indictment,
III the courts opinion, there was no evidence
that Coomes was guilty. He had not refused
To work unless paid. On the contrary,whe
hlttershofer refused to pay him the $l5, he
went away, saying he would do the
best he could. The money had not
been paid until Rittershofer had received
his goods and then it had been paid volun-
tarly and quite properly. The third indict-
ment was the only one with evidence to sup
port it. But for this the law itself provides
the penalty of removal from the force.
CoOmes has been already discharged from
the force, and that is the only punishment
case, gentlemen" said the judge.
AS the court wound up his review of each
indictment by finding nothing in it, there
was murmur of appreciation through the
crowded court room, and when the jury found
a verdict of mot guilty" without leaving
their seats, there was slight applause.
Coomes and his attorneys looked well pleased
and the judge laughed.
The other detective cases will be taken up
this morning. 1t is claimed by the govern
ment that there is stronger case against the
other defendants than there was against
Coome5.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
The proceedings of the United States su-
preme court yesterday were as follows: Ad-
mission to the bar, A. j. Plowman, of Dead
wood, Oak.
No. ST. Mary r. Steever, appellant, VS.. JAS
N. Hickman. Ordered that appellant pay
costs due clerk within twenty days, or case
will be dismissed.
No. 6s Robert and William Mitchell, plain
tifis in error, VS.. William G. Clark. Passed.
No 3d. Albert Conro and w. S. Carkin, ap-
pelants, VS.. Charles S. Crane ct al. Passed
on account of sickness of counsel.
No. 81. The United States, appellants VS..
Francis A. Gibbons, jr. Argued.
No. TO- Joseph Bane ct al, appellants, VS..
Henry Sohe Argued.
Adjourned.
THE GERMAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING.
Mr.. L. II. Rollins yesterday filed bill in
equity against Xenos c. Robbins to validate n
release. The bill sets forth that in October,
1873 Robbins was the owner of the property
at the corner of Seventh and + streets, known
as tho Federal building" some in fee and
some in lease, with right to purchase; that to
obtain title TO all Robbins entered into an
agreement with Hitz, Mattngly, and Prem
tiss, and assigned to them his rights in the
leases, with power of purchase and lease in
fee simple property; that they should pay
$500 per month rent for ten years, with priv
lege of purchase discharged from the dover
of Robbins's wife for $93,000 they to pay the
membranes, $4,000, and in ten years to
purchase the title in fee of the leasehold es-
tate signed to them, Robbins covcnanting
to convey in fee. Rollins states that the
original assignors conveyed to the German
American Savings bank and subsequently
conveyed TO complainant. and he prays that
the lease be declared a binding one; that de-
fendant pay him $4,000, the amount of two
mortgages held by him; also, the sum of
$4,000 expended by complainant on the
property and $42 900 paid for the purchase Of
the fec and to declare these sums lien ON
the property, and further that defendant is
not entitled to conveyance.
AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RAILWAY
ASKED.
&c. Caldwell and c. c. Anderson yoster-
day filed bill against the Baltimore aud
Potomac railway for an injunction to restrain