Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-07-13
THE HANSCO1I AND PRUD,xHOMME
RORBEsIIES
The Same Gang OF Indicted Thieves
Concerned.
HOW DARED THEY RETURN HERE, AND WHO PRO-
TECTED THEM HERE?

On the 9th Of May, 1873, Edward Perkins, alias
Pettingail, alias Anderson, and Peter Burns and
James Logue, alias Jim Logue, were indicted
Qndictment No 1887 for the larceny OF forty
two thousand dollars. f1ve-twenty bonds, from
Naval Constructor Hanscom. The circumst lnces
OF the robbery were strikingly like those OF the
Prud'homme robbery. Hanscom kept his bonds
In a secretary standing in a room adjacent to his
bedroom. Access was probably obtained to the
house in the day time. A Jimmy and chisel were
used, and key-SubSeQuenty found In the posses
sion OF one of the parties-was used to open the
receptacle In which the bonds had been placed.
All OF the parties excepting Perkins fisd, but
he, shortly after the robbery, sol ! two OF the
for So, 600. giving a false name and address, and
subsequently returned and offered two thou sand
more Tor sale, giving different address The
bank at that time discovered that the bonds then
offered were also part OF the stolen bonds. where
upon Perkins was arrested, brought here, twice
convicted, and sentenced by Judge Hagner to the
penitentiary.
Mr.. Williams. the counsel for Perkins, contended
with great earnestness that Perkins could not be
been in the District OF Columbia at that time.
There was, however. found upon him, as before
mentioned, key that unlocked the drawer from
which the bonds were stolen, which, with the fact
OF the stolen goods unaccounted for was sufficient
to satisfy the jury OF his guilt; the court holding
that presence near enough to aid and assist IN
the felony was sufficient to warrant verdict.
The case subsequently went to the General Term,
where the sentence below was affirmed, and Per-
Some weeks ago there arrived in this city the
same James Logue and one OF the Burns-there
were two brothers. James and Peter. The former
recently died in Italy. Logue and Burns, on
was taken for them, In the upper story OF
house on 9TH street northwest. After re-
naming here some days and doing probably
one or two small jobs, they returned 10 New
York. During their stay here the Prud'homme
robbery was Effected, by the use OF Jimmy, nip
pers AMI chisel The drawer being made OF
hard wood, the chisel made an indentatton of its
own owns shape A., therein ana also plain mark Of
been Watching these people for some days and
nights, probably fearing that another robbery
might be successfully accomplished and the
plunder be gotten OH. Logue and Burns were ar
ana remarkably dne set OF burglars tools, In
cluding a Jimmy, nipperS, two turn keys and q
Droken chisel, which hts exactly to the marks on
the Prud'hOmme drawer.
It's understood that when released on de-
post OF $50 each, these expert cracksmen started
north, but we're again arrested and now held In
Baltimore. Their persons were perfectly well
known to the old detectives 1t was upon the
testimony OF one or more OF the ex-detective
officers that Burns, LOgue and Perkins were in
dfcted for the Hdnscom robbery.
1t IS a very remarkable circumstance that these
two we'll known thieves should have dared come
here anf remain for weeks with the original in
pending.
1t would be an interesting inquiry and quite we'll
worth prosecuting as to who brought these men
here, who projected them, why was not Logua ar
rested on the Old indict ment, why was not the
tniru man, who connected with them while they
We're here, and who for twenty years nearly has
tlved by crooked ways and as gO-between for
tneVeS also run down, arrested and tried for some
OF The criminal practices In which he habitually
1ndulgeS In? Would 1t not be good plan to send
bench warrant to Baltimore and bring LOgue
and perhaps Burns back here and try them for the
HanScOm robbery?