National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-04-21
FROM THE PEOPLE.
Receiving Stolen Goods Knowing Them to be
Stolen.
Letters on Police MnIadnsin;strntIon,
spirituaIIsm, and Other Matters.

The recent charge of Judge Wylie in the
detective trial' has drawn the attention OF
all good citizens to the state of our criminal
law governing this offense
No lawyer needs to be told that Judge
Esek Cowen was, in his day, q master of juris-
prudence.
In the third volume of Hill New York Re-
ports) is found q case 80 nearly like the
Metropolitan bank robbery that the opinion
of Judge Cowen therein might have been
quoted almost entire in charging the jury in
the latter and it is difficult to resist the con-
cluson that the result of the trial might have
been different had that distinguished Judge
been more closely followed.
Tho case was this: The Frederick County
bank of Maryland was robbed May %, 1Sil
Of notes and bonds exceeding in value
$4,000. The thieves fed with the property
to the city of Now York, and there con-
nected with one Wiley, who held the office of
police justice of tho city of New York. On
the 10th of June, 1884, this man Wiley wrote
to the cashier Of tho bank (one Doyle, saying
that If the agents of the bank could have o
personal interview with him he had no doubt
he could arrange matters in manner that
would be satisfactory by a restitution of the
loss. In answer to this letter agents were
sent to New York to negotiate with Wiley,
with full power to act on tho basis of the
letter After much negotiation the business
was contaminated by tho bank recovering
from Wiley the sum Of S122619, and paying
him per cent thereon, or the sum of
$S,909.52, as his reward.
Wiley was afterwards indicted for 'receiv-
ing stolen goods knowing them to have been
stolen" lie was defended by n. Il. Blunt,
and Charles O'Conor-
The statute of New York was substantially
the same as ours, which is Sec 1160 of the re-
ole tat, 1ati 10 Nhn 81, &c
Columbia. Among the points of law con-
tended for by the defendants counsel was the
following:
A person who receives stolen property from
the thief, at the request OF, ana for the purpo,e
of restoring II to the owner, Is not felonious re.
ceiver within the statute, even though he knew
the property to have been stolen, and acted for u
reward to be paid to him by the owner or thief.
Tho answer of Judge Cowen to this soph-
stry seems to fully justify the prosecution in
their theory of the recent case. 1t is as fol-
lows:
But take II to DO clear, on the other hand that
If, pursuant to an understanding between a stran.
ger and thief, the stranger invite an interview
with the owner and obtain and receive the goods
for him under the mere color of an agency, but
really to make profit out Of the larceny, he is q
receiver within the statute.
Again
would by no means be considered as admit
ting that any arrangement TO obtain and restore
stolen goods for arcwardsipulated with the owners
and actually receiving from them the thief for
that purpose, would stand clear OF the statute 1t
obviously would not If the reward were to be re.
ceivcd from the thief and if from the owner, 1t
would be crime within the statute under which
Jonathan Wild was hung.
Again
lfhe 1.-THE AGENT will open q communication
with the thief and obtain the goods in order TO
profit by the transaction, oven under direction
from the owner. am lar from being disposed to
tell them that he is not within the statute OF crmi
nal receivers.
Wiley was convicted and new trial de-
MED under that Interpretation of the law.