Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1883-05-31

she entered unannounced into the room o
the Hughes family; that she found Mr.. ant
Mrs. Hughes there alone; that the forme
hastily left the room, and went up stairs
carrying with him certain articles which h,
tried to hide from her; and there was a lot O
very bright metal lying on the table, and alst
on the floor, that appeared to have beer
spilled there; and that she was 30 frightened
by what she saw there that she didn't stay
but very short time. She also states thai
ut the same time she saw one OF the squares
used for making molds standing on the ta.
bic, and that Mrs. Hughes told her that hei
husband had been mending rings; but nc
rings were seen by the witness, and she did
not think the metal there looked as metal to
solder rings.
The explanation given by Mrs. Hughes
seems to be the chief ground of defence to
account for the presence OF the tale telling
material and implements found; and it is
commended that the defendant was kind Of
general tinkerer, and wanted them for that
purpose. Yet we find no soldering iron,
| without which such work cannot be done !;
nor any rosin, which is equally necessary
1t is true defendant tries to explain the alb
sence of the latter by stating that he used
muriatic acid for the purpose of timing and
| soldering, and he tried to demonstrate how
he did 1t in connection with peculiarly
| shaped piece OF tin; yet Mr.. Fontaine, wit
| ness for the defence, states: "Take the sol.
dering iron hot and muratic acid, and it will
! tin II, but not for use;" and then, testing the
metal on the piece of tin, he says, positively,
mo, sir, that will never do It,"
1t Is further to be remarked that the de.
PENDANT, in his own testimony, voluntarily
given, wholly failed to explain the cause Of
his hasty exit and the presence of the spilled
metal at the time of Mrs. Bowen's entrance
into the room.
Another fact, which appears prominently
from the testimony, Is, that the materials and
implements found were so found in out-of-
the-way places In the house-some at one
place and hid on 4 rafter, and others else
where, covered up by boards-instead of in
the defendants shop; and, in fact, it is prov
en- that the shop contained neither work.
bench nor vises, screws or other implements
usually found In the shops Of tinkerers, gun
smiths and blacksmiths, all of which trades
the defendant is said to have followed for
the last three years. The evidence also
shows that the defendants earnings for the
last three years resulting from his trade |
work were less than sixty dollars.
These being the facts rs found from the |
evidence, the next question is, What ia the |
law applicable to these facts?
1t is cOntended by counsel for defendant |
that, according to Mr.. Greenleaf, the finding |
~ ,rSi
bic 40 evidence of guilt only In
case that they had been found previous to
the principal charge; but as In this case they /
were found at the arrest In May, 1883, and
the offence is charged to have been commit
ted in November, 1882, therefore the evidence
ls not admissible.
1t IL true that Mr.. Greenleaf does so state
the rule In certain cases, but on examina.
lion It will be found that this only applies to
cases where bank notes or coins are proven
to have been found in defendants possession
Or passed by him anterior to the charge, but
that this rule does not apply to counterfeit
Ing material such as was found in this case.
In Chitby's Criminal Law, Vol. H., page
l03, not A., It Is stated that "Houses and 9th.
er suspected places may be searched for tools
and base coin, which may be seized and pro.
iuced in evidence;" and In Blackstone Com
Vol. w., page "a, it ia stated that
'counterfeiting the Kings money Is treason
at Common Law" even without passing It;
that is, even where the principal charge Of
passing 1t is not proven.
In Wharton's American Criminal Law,
section 634, It is stated that . defendants
conduct during the res gest9. as his manner
Ut the time Of passing the note, Is admissible /
10 prove intent and motive. Also, section
81, In relation to guilty knowledge, the
acts or conduct, Of similar character, even
though involving substantive crimes, is ad.
to prove guilty knowledge. - It |
may also be proved by the fact of imple-
ments for forging, found in the possession of
the defendant; and in section 1902 it is stat.
ed, in a case of counterfeit half-dollars Of
Peru, that the procuring Of dies was an act
in furtherance OF the criminal purpose, SUI
fciently evidencing the criminal intent; and
sfr. Greenleaf, section ITO, states that evil
ience showing that defendant had instru-
ments for manufacturing forged articles, is
admissible to prove guilty knowledge, and
that the same doctrine Is applied to the
crime of uttering counterfeit coin, and that
this kind of evidence has been extended to
proof of scienter on the trial of an indictment
For falsely representing the bill Of an insol-
vent bank as good.
In the case of United States W.. King, s
Mclean, 2OS, referred to in his argument by
Assistant District Attorney Smith, 1t Is held
that on an Indictment for counterfefting, the
guilty participation of the defendant may be
Inferred from the proof that, amongst other
articles, instruments and appliances for max
ng 1t were found in his possession
1t certainly cannot be commended seriously
hat the court meant to say that, after the
hiding of those articles, the defendant
hould be set loose to give him . chance to
bass counterfeit money before the evidence
would be admissible; such a rule would be
IN aiding In the violation Of law, which is
lbhOrrent to all principles Of law.
These being my views Of the facts, and the
aw, think there is probable cause to be.
ieve that the defendant is guilty Of the Of
ence CHARGED In the complaint. and Il Ia my | =