The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-12-26

! as he said, to get an engagement with the
| atrical company. He was also an electrician
he said. and might decide, if unsuccessful
TO engage with an electric light company
Shortly after he was gone Detective Nallely
Inspector Byrne's right hand man. came
examined the ground and told the Koehne
women and Maud Wilton that Rohan was
the burglar. He also Informed Maud she
| had been deceived and was no wife.
| Maud Wilton continued to live with the
| Koennes. They secured her work at her
trade of dress-making, and in time good
man wooed her. She told him all aud he
| forgave and married her. She bore him
\ children, and they knew no unhappiness till
a week ago.
In May, 1885, man calling himself E. s..
Mills was caught in commonplace burg
larry. in Cleveland. o., and sentenced to
seven years imprisonment in the Columbus
penitentiary. While there he behaved in an
exemplary manner and won the friendship
of Frank KOehne, the keeper. He meant
to reform when free, he said. and was ex-
tremely anxious to win the Communication
for good conduct. He was an electrician,
he said, and hoped yet to win fortune and
distinction in his profession. He confessed
his true name was not Mills. He wished
that concealed, he said, because of his family
and college friends Investigation revealed
his real name was De AFFORD, and that he
Was u kTttuudJ6 VI OOofllu OOllcSe.
BOTH WERE ELECTRICIANS.
In 1887 MIR. Koehne visited New York,
and while there called on his cousins, the
ladies who had befriende1 Maud Wilton.
They told him of the burglary of five years
before, and the mention of their lodger's
electrical learning led the prisonkeeper to
question them closely. He found Rohan's
description to tally with that of Mills, or
De AFFORD, and reported TO the New York
authorities. On his return to Columbus he
adroitly caused the convict to betray his
identity.
When the burglars term expired, short
ened as it was for good conduct, New
York officer was on hand to rearrest him.
Pictures of him were taken, and the Koehne
ladies and Maud Wilton identified them.
Then occurred the most remarkable part of
the whole proceeding. the woman who
had been named Wilton, now highly re-
spscted wife, whose past had until then
been buried, was informed she would be
dragged into court to help convict her
former burglar lover. She protested in
anguish that she would not 60 upon the
stand.
her husband heroically decided that,
since Justice demanded it, she should SUBJ
init to the terrible exposure. The prosecut-
ing lawyers were touched. They suggested
that she como deeply yelled and under the
name of Maud Wilton. They successfully
arranged with the judge aud Romans law
yer to have this programme carried out,
aud 30 it happened thai on Dec. II. $780, E.
s. Mills was confronted with witness
whose face he could not see, who identified
him as Charles Rohan, and who was not
asked to tell her name or raise her veil.
Mills defense was an abb based solely on
his own testimony. The result of the trial
hinged on the question of idsnity, there be-
ing clear proof that Charles Rohan commit
ted the Koehne burglary. Mills had sworn
he was never in New York before. Five
persons identified him as Rohan. and Agent
Charles jackson of Sing Sing swore he was
in prison there from 1881 to 1883 under the
name of Charles De AFFORD but the jury
disagreed. That he was not convicted Is
considered remarkable. He will at once be
retired.