Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-04-10
JONES NOT GUILTY.
THIS VERDICT RETURNED IN Two
CASES AGAINST HIM.
JUDGE HUGHES ON DECOl LETTERS.
lie Thinks They May he Necessary
for the Detection OF Criminals,
hut should Not lie Used I'm Prose-
cufions--One Charge Goes over.

Inc case against l.. Il. JoucS, iSriStdh'
postmaster at Mattoax. In Chesterfield
county. which has been occupying the
attention OF the United States District
Court Judge Robert w. Hughes pre-
siding for the past three days, was
brought to a termination yesterday, the
jury returning a verdict of mot guilty
on two Of the indictments, and disagree
ing on the third.
This case came up for trial In the
United States District Court on Tues
day last, upon three indictments-the first
charging the accused with OBTAINING In
his post-office certain letters which he
should have forwarded. The second
indictment charged him with embezzling
the said letters. and the third with en-
bezzlIng another letter and stealing the
money therefrom.
HOW THE CASE AROSE.
The facts. as developed in the evil
dence, show that complaints had been
made against the post-ofiice at Mattoax,
where the defendant was assistant post
master, in consequence OF which the
Post-Ofice Department had delegated one
Of its inspectors to investigate the mat
ter. This investigation showed that
two letters mailed on the train from
Richmond to Mattoax by the inspector
on the 9th Of February last. which con-
tanned money, were not in the mailbag
after it passed through the hands of
the assistant postmaster at MattoaX'
whereupon the post-ofiice inspector
l,a a "a
and. together with person called In as
a. witness by him, found the money, which
had been placed in one Of the letters and
marked. in barrel in the post-ofhce, and
one of the other letters. which had been
mailed by him that morning, with money
in It, markedg together with four other
letters. in the post-office. The assistant
postmaster stated to the inspector that
he knew nothing of the letters at first,
but subsequently produced one OF the
decoy letters and four other letters
which had been detained from the said
mail The accused stated that these
five letters had been left out of the mail
accidentally, and denied all knowledge
of the other letter, the money from
which was found in the barrel. Such,
in brief, are the facts.
Vpon these facts the defence asked the
letter. addressed to a fictitious person.
could not be the subject of theft The
Court declined to give the instructions.
and under decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States, instructed the jury
that such a letter could be the subject
of theft.
THE JUDGE ON DECOY LETTERS.
Judge Hughes, in giving the instruc-
tons, said:
''Tbe Circuit courts OF the United
States have not been disposed TO en-
courage the use of decoy letters as the
basis of criminal prosecutions for depre-
dations upon the mails. There is some
thing repugnant in the idea of the gov
eminent. by art and contrivance. entrap-
ming one of it's citizens into the com
mission of crime i'm order to subject him
TO criminal prosecution; and such prose-
cutions have been felt by the courts to
he more or less Objectionable in morals
and in policy.
.'rhe use of decoy letters for the pur-
nose of discovering who the mail-robbers
are Is in itself probably necessary. and,
if Objectionable, is at least tolerable, on
the ground Of necessity. But to go
farther. and, after the citizen has been
seduced by the government into robbing
the mail, 10 prosecute him criminally for
the act. is more or less offensive to
public sentiment.
az should have been disposed TO fol-
low the rulings OF some or the circuit
courts in discouraging these prosecu-
lions. but ] think the Supreme Court
has decided Enthusiastically, not only that
the use of decoy letters is necessary to
the detection Of certain offences. but
that criminal prosecutions based on de-
COWS must be sustained. l will there
fore give 10 the jury the instructions
asked for by the District Attorney, ana
will refuse TO give the instructions or
fered by counsel for the defence
THE JURY'S VERDICT.
The Jury was out for about an hour.
once during that time they askeu LOT
instructions. and the nature or the query
led 10 the belief that verdict OF guilty
would be returned. There was soihe
evidence of surprise when the announce
ment was made that the prisoner was
entirely exonerated on the charges of
OBTAINING the United States mails and
of stealing letters, while the jury was
honelesslv divided on the third charge,
that of ENLIGHTENMENT.
After some discussion as TO whether
the Jury should further consider thls
case Judge Hughes decided to discharge
the Jury. Jones was admitted to bail
In the same amount as before, and his
wife. father, and brother were accepted
as sureties.
The prisoner betrayed little or no emo
ton when IL was announced that a
verdict was reached or even during the
ordeal of the entrance of the jury, and
the forms which precede the announce
ment of a verdict He accepted the con-
gratulations of his friends in very
matter-of-fact way, and the only signs
of elation were exhibited by his coun-
sci Messrs. Smith and Flournoy. who
were highly complimented on the way
in which they had fought and argued
the issues
MOONSHINERS PLEAD GUILTY.
Jenks Jackson and II. p. Head. indict-
ed on two counts-for Illicit whiskey-
distilling. and selling whiskey without
a license-pleaded guilty, and were fined
& each and sent TO Jail for one month
on the first count, and on the second
they were fined 800 each and sent 10
iail for thirty days.
r. Z. Branch, charged with contempt
of court, was discharged
g.
Knight NEW PICTURES