Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-08
AS READ BY THE JURY
loves Letters Result in Conviction
for Using the Mails to
WORK AN OLD CONFIDENCE GAME.
Lewis Van Houten Sent to the Penitentiary
for Three Years.
THE NEWS OF The COUNTY COURTS

fendant being found guilty as indicted and
recommended to the mercy of the Court.
At the opening of the District Court yes.
terday morning, ex-Congressman Brainard
argued the law in the case, and held to the
position he took in his motion to quash the
indictment. He held that the letter in
question of itself contained nothing con.
trary to the law, and that the Government
could not 60 outside of the charges in the
Indictment and seek to show something out
side of the letter. After he had concluded,
Judge Burlington held the indictment was
sufficient, and instructed counsel to 60 to
the jury.
| Ex-senator Allen addressed the Jury in
behalf of the defendant. District Attorney
Lyon followed for the Government. These
two speeches consumed all of the morning
session and in the afternoon Judge Buff
ington charged the jury AT 4 o'clock the
| jury retired and returned with their YER
dict
This was the most important case yet
tried this term and there was much interest
manifested in the Judges charge. While it
was being delivered the court room was we'll
filled with spectators, including many prom
Inent citizens and officials.
Judge Buflington's Charge.
His Honor's charge was clear, clean-cut
statement of the law bearing on the case.
1t was rather brief, but plain, to the point
and entirely void of partiality for one
side or the other After reviewing the testi-
monv, he said to the jury:
1t will be for you to examine the testi-
mony of all the witnesses and consider the
interests of each one. You have a right to
consider the appearance of the various wit
nesses on the stand, as to whether their testi-
mony was given to you in that candid man
ner that indicates truthfulness. You
may consider also the confessions of the
defendant to Marshal Barring. A man cannot
be misled by an officer. 1t is his duty to
inform a prisoner that any confession he
may make will be used against him. You
NAV consider the confessions of Mr. Lowe
and satisfy yourselves as to whether they
were made because of a candid belief OF
guilt or whether his mind was in state OF
confusion.
You also have the handwriting of the de-
fendant, and have q right to compare it
and other papers admitted in evidence.
You must give the defendant the benefit of
any doubts that may arise. Taking the case
in all its phases you must consider the
veracity of the witnesses. II you are salts
fled that the defendant did devise this
scheme and placed or caused to be placed in
the poStof11ce this paper in question; If your
minds can rest with positiveness upon
the conclusion that he is guilty, 1t Is your
duty TO convict.
The Defendant Gets the Benefit
If on the other hand your minds are not Mt
rest, so that you can have a full conscious
ness of doing your whole duty by the defen-
duty to give tho defendant the benefit Of
this doubt
Counsel for the defense has asked me to in
struct yon on the following points:
Ffrst-The investigation of the jury must
be confined to the specific charge set forth
in the indictment; that the devising OF a
scheme to defraud Clark sweatland by
means OF getting up correspondence
through the postoffice department and exc
cutting the said scheme by sending the letter
set forth in the Indictment through the
United States mail. That point Is affirmed.
SeeondAThe defendant cannot be con-
victed OF any other act offense than that
charged In the Indictment. The averments
in the Indictment limit the Government in
what it has right to ask against the de-
fendant in this case. That point is affirmed
and further: your inquiry is confined to the
charge in the Indictment. Yon have moth |
ing to do with an Indictment incidentally
brought out in the trial
Th1rd-The letter set forth in the indict- |
ment is not unlawful upon the face of it. !
and Is such letter as the defendant or anv |
person would have the right to send through |
the mail. The defendant would have the |
right to send the letter through the mails
unless the jury should find from the eyi- |
dence 1t was part of a scheme to defraud, as
set forth in the general charge. AS thus
qualified the point is affirmed.
Fourth-The language of the letter set |
forth in the Indictment must be interpreted |
In its ordinary sense. There is no presump-
tion to be drawn under the law against the
defendant from the language used, but every
must be resolved by the jury |
n favor of the innocence of the defendant
IL the absence OF proper avcrments of the
crime and proof OF the averments beyond
reasonable doubt. This point is affirmed.
Looking for hidden Meaning.
Fifth-That the Indictment contains no
Iverment on the part of the Government
hat the said letter set forth in the indict-
nent or any part of it means any different
han what appears upon the face of it under
he ordinary interpretation of the language
ing that "The said U. B. Lowe pretending
n the said letter that the said L. B. Lowe
ould furnish to the said Clark Sweatiand
puTious and counterfeit money-notes COM
monty called grccnbacks: that being the
cal object of him, the said u b. Lowe, and
his pretense falsely made in said letter."
tc. we are OF the opinion that the indict-
nent contains averments that the letter
means something different from what ap-
Years on the face OF 1t. and therefore decline
o affirm this point.
Sixth-That the absence of m nyerrnent |
y the Government in the Indictment that
he language and terms in the letter mean
unlawful and criminal the Gov |
rnment has no right to ask the jury to find
hat the letter or language and terms used, |
nean anything different from what 1t states
pom the face OF It, For the reasons set |
orth In the refusal of the preceding point,
70 decline to affirm this point.
Interpreted by Common Sense.
Seventh-The Government having failed |
. charge in the Indictment that any special
roaming or Interpretation is to be given to
ne language and terms used in the letter, |
lust be held to concede that the language
sed is not susceptible to any special inter
rotation or unlawful meaning but
lust be content that the letter be
lterp1 eted according to the ordi-
ary meaning of the language and terms ,
sed. For the same reasons set forth in the ,
etusal of the fifth point. we decline to af- |
rm this point. 1t is trne that the letter is :
be interpreted according to the ordinary ,
leaninF or the language and terms used,
ut the Jury are not bound to say that the
tier has no other meaning than the words
their ordinary meaning. They may
lrther inquire whether as stated in the gem
al charge, the letter was part OF scheme
defraud.
Eighth-That under this Indictment and
le proof submitted on the part OF the Gov
defendant cannot be convicted | !
Id should be acquitted. This point we de- = =
inc to affirm. Under the Indictment proofs = :
I'd instructions of the point, the question =
the guilt or innocence of tho defendant :
ust be passed upon by the jury. :,
Mr.. Allen stated there would be motion s
ade next week for new trial.