The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1896-11-25
9maerspn gatellfgemeer.
SOME NOTABLE CASES.
Is Evidence of Any Kind Trustworthy ?
San Francisco Chronicle.

Durant, stated that they would con-
vict person on circumstantial evil
dencc. The repugnance for circum-
stantial evidence has occasioned con-
siderable discussion throughout the
State. Judges and lawyers are Of the
opinion that good circumstantial evi-
dence is the best in the world, for
circumstances do not lie. The
Judges and lawyers may be right, but
if the pardon books of the penitentia-
ries from Sing Sing to San Quentin
were spread before the Chronicle read
ers, doubts would arise in their minds
as to the efficiency of any kind of evi-
dence.
Every little while brief paragraphs
in the newspapers announce the par
doning of some unfortunate from State
prison, it having been discovered that
he was entirely innocent of the crime
for which he was convicted. The
books at San Quentin reveal number
of such cases, and yet the law not only
grants no recompense to its living VIC
tins, but finds more.
Here are a few sample cases:
George Nelson, fresco painter, had
the pleasure of spending two years in
San Quentin, because his voice sound
ed like that of robber named Dorsey,
alias Thorn. He was charged with
robbery, and attempted to prove an
alibi by Swede and his wife, at whose
place he secured his supper. Through
fear q being implicated in the crime
the Swede and his wife denied that
they had ever set eyes on Nelson.
Upon circumstantial evidence Sacra-
mento jury convicted him and he was
sentenced to ten years Imprisonment.
Two years afterwards two men,
Shinn and Dorsey, were arrested in
the east and brought back to the coast.
1t had been discovered that they, in
stead of Nelson, committed the rob-
berry. Dorsey made confession when
confronted with proofs Of his guilt.
He is now in San Quentin.
Nelson demanded damages for his
sufferings and injured innocence soon
after his pardon in 1891. A liberal
Legislature allowed him $1,000, but
the State never paid him the money.
The best he secured was a little work
,on the State capitol.
Charles Dental, an old Frenchman,
was convicted of murder in the second
degree in Placer county and started to
serve a life seatence on May 25, 1859.
He was convicted on circumstantial
evidence and on July 10, 1885, he
was released from San Quentin, it
having been discovered that he was
innocent, and was convicted because
he was poor and friendless and unable
to speak the English language. Den
tai never even received as much as
work on the State capitol as recon-
pense for his sixteen years Of enforced
idleness.
On August 5, 1874, Bartofo Sepul-
veda was convicted of murder in Ala
media county and sent to San Quentin
for life. On January %, 1885, the
board of prison directors declared him
innocent of the crime, and it appears
on the boards records that Sepulveda
would never have been convicted if
the evidence of N. R. Harris.had been
given at the trial.
Marion F. Smith was not only vic
tim of circumstantial evidence, but
the testimony of perjurer. He was
sent from San Bernardino to San
Quentin to serve twelve-year SEN
tence for attempted arson. That was
on May 20, 1879. He languished in
prison until April %, 1886, and then
it was ascertained that he was inno-
cent and that the principal witness
against him perjured himself in order
to secure reward for his arrest and
conviction.
W. F. Harmon, young inventor Of
this city, spent four years across the
bay as penalty for the forgery Of
Louis L. Trowbridge, an all-around
crook. When Trowbridge was in St.
Louis, in 1893, he was Informed that
Harmon was serving time for his crime.
He worried over the matter so that
one day he walked into the Office Of
the St. Louis Chief of Police and gave
himself up. This did Harmon little
good, for his term had expired amonth
previous.
The sad part of the story is, that
after the prison doors closed on the
young man his wife and child were
left entirely destitute. The woman,
in her dire. distress, appealed to the
man who had prosecuted her husband
for food and he responded generously.
Finally she disappeared and thc ex-
convict is still hunting for his wife
and child with heavy heart. This
transgression, therefore, resulted in
sending one man to Jail, in breaking
the heart of a good wife and utterly
destroying a family.
These are a few California cases,
but California is not alone when it
comes to making such grave mistakes.
In the summer of 1892 jury at
Waldron, Ark, found Abner Ray
guilty of the murder of John Potts.
The condemned man rose to his feet
to protest his innocence. His limbs
trembled, his face flushed, and he fell
forward dead of heart disease. A mo-
ment later John Potts entered the
courtroom.
In 1872 Maley, of Harrisville, W.
Va, was sentenced to life imprison-
ment for numbering his wife with
arsenic. Twenty years afterward it
was accidentally discovered that the
poison was given to Mrs. Maley by the
servant through mistake for medicine,
and that frightened at the result she
permitted Maley to be convicted upon
circumstantial evidence.
Edward H. Post, Of Nordoff, N. j.,
was sentenced October Is, 1893, to
fifteen years in State prison for an
outrageous assault on Mamie Murphy
in the outskirts of Paterson. After
fourteen months confinement he was
freed, it being proved tc the satisfac-
tion of the Court that he was not in
or about Paterson at the time of the
assault. Of course Mr.. Post was glad
to get out of jail, but should he not
be recompensed for the sufferings he
endured and the time he lost =?
A few years ago John Funella was
released from the Auburn, N. Y,
rrisnn h1, r;rtna nS nommIta q tinn of