National Republican., 1883-10-27

officers TO desert their duty on the contrary, their
interest then would be on the side Of the com
munity for the detection Of crime.
But. 10 long As persons lose their property and
offer rewards for It's restoration those rewards are
q temptation to the public officials engaged In the
the psTty Of ibieSes and depredStors on society
But this is somewhat OF diversion. have
passed the point whore | rested this case upon
McElfresh in regard to the delivery Of the watch,
ana had said To you that Ia you believed McEl-
fresh had never received the watch from Donohue,
The next question, which began to consider
before making this digression, was this; Whether,
II Donohue's story be true, and the watch was dc.
iivered to MoElfresh for the purpose Of enabling
McElfresh to return the watch TO Its owner aud
secure the reward which the owner had adver-
tsed, whether that was such possession of stolen
goods, knowing them to have been stolen, as
would render him liable TO this Indictment. My
opinion Is that II was not; Such q possession as
that would be merely for the purpose of returning
to the owner on his own terms his goods that were
stolen-on terms which he had himself adVer.
tlsed.
There is a third view of this case that possibly
there might be some evidence looking TO the sup.
port Of. although not much. If were fact that
fdcnce with Donohue before this crime Of stealing
the watch was committed, general con federacy.
with p9nohue asa fence who, y . understood,
being offered, that The detectives should take the
property to the owner and secure the offered re.
ward, paying Donohue what tbe properly cost
balance between themselves, that would
be such c9nfederaey as would make
should find such case as that, we should not
hesitate to hold MoElfresh and Finder both. under
such an Indictment as this, the actual receivers
of stolen goods because when man Is In con.
federacy with others to do an unlawful act he is
bound by the acts ofthe others-their receiving
the stolen goods s his receiving the stolen goods.
There is enough IN this case to excite suspicion
in that direction, at least These fences arc es-
tablished: They are going on, II Is known what
there is enough evidence in this case to sh
such confederucy as that. There Is enough GER
tainty, however, 70 excite suspicion If not alarm
do not know that have LEFT unanswered sub.
stantially, any ofthe prayers that have been Of.
fercd on the part of tho defense or the part OF
the prosecution.
The law is an exact thing. Criminal law
especially Is an exact thing. 1t Will not swell,
II IS an indissoluble rule and regulation. Here
these men are indicted for receiving stolen goods
knowing them 70 have been stolen. II is a prln.
ciple of the law that the receiving of the stolen
goods must have been in the Interest of the
thief for the purpose Of shielding the thief Il
for the purpose Of Complying with public requests trS
OF the owner of the goods, in having his goods
restored to him, then such possession as that
these men are indicted.
You can take the case, gentlemen. It is under
stood that will reject oil the prayers in the form
III which they are presented.
The following were the prayers on behalf
of the prosecution:
II the jury find from the evidence that the two
defendants were acting together, both had posses
sion OF the property, then 1t was joint possession
and 1t Is not necessary 10 find that both had actua
| possession.
If the jury find from the evidence that the de.
| fendant Finder. pursuant to an understand dine
with the defendant McElfresh. did approach the
owner of the watch for the purpose of obtaining q
reward and for the purpose Of making profit fol
himself and said McEliresh out Of the larceny
and that either, or both, had possession Of the
watch, awaiting the receipt Of the reward. know
ing II to have been stolen, then they nre guilty.
| That accomplices in receiving stolen goods ar,
| only those who receive jointly, and that W herC
one receiver ersecures from previous receiver theI
| they are not joint receivers or accomplices.
Confirmation, when required, may be of tht
facts and circumstances In proof in the case, anC
II is not necessary that the corroboration should
| be direct.