The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1899-10-10
NEVILLE CASE
POSTPONED.
Hearing Will Not Be Had Be-
fore Next Monday.
SOME NEAT POINTS OF LAW
That Are Very Likely to be Raised In the
case and Touching on the
Question of Trap
Setting.

Setting.
The hearing of Isaac Neville, which |
had been set for 1 o'clock today before |
Mayor Robertson, has been postponed |
until 1 o'clock next Monday afternoon. |
The case was continued at the request |
of the defense. Attorney G. G. Upham |
has been retained by Neville to defend |
him and Mr.. Upham stated that they |
were not ready yet to go into hearing. |
! There will be hot fight put up by
Attorney Upham, to save Neville from
the penitentiary. Already several deci-
sions have been discovered and an eff
fort will doubtless be made to make
them fit the present case. There are
decisions in Ohio and elsewhere with
reference to setting traps for suspects
but whether they apply in this case is
a question for the courts. An attorney
who has made wide experience in Grim
inal work and whose opinions are
worthy of careful consideration stated
to a News-Democrat man that he had
no doubt that an effort would be made
to make the decisions with reference to
tran setting apply to the Neville case.
He said the courts might go farther
than they have gone but that the deci-
sions on that matter were all based on
an inducement held out to commit
crime. In cases of that sort the crimi-
nal is not convicted. Where detective
gets in with a suspect and offers him a
consideration for committing a crime
and then arrests him for committing it,
the courts have decided that the defen-
dant cannot be held. In the Neville case
{ a trap was cleverly laid. There is no
dispute on that point. Whether the in
} ducement is there, that will bring 1t
, under the decisions in that class Of cases
is the question. 1t is claimed that the
safe was purposely left unlocked so that
the opportunity and the temptation
= would come to the colored janitor in
making his rounds. Whether that will
be construed as to contributing to the
I crime to the extent of condoning it is a
Y point the courts will have to pass upon.
The inducement in this case may have
r been the extra amount Of money that
s was in the safe, yet before the safe was
opened the colored janitor did not know
=, how much was in it and he did only
what he was suspected of doing on for
l. lmer occasions. But knowing that the
= safe was unlocked and not locking 1t
e might be construed as being contribu-
tory to the crime and a point might be
raised on thet account
q 1t is not denied that the amount was
II made large so that the accused might
T. commit a penitentiary offense and this
-,
-, the crime if the defendant is adjudged
= guilty of the offense at all. 1t was not
customary to have such q sum In the
N safe after business hours, 1t will likely
be claimed hence the crime of granG
l. larceny did not enter the mind of, the
alleged criminal when he went to the
10 safe and found it open. Peculatior
therefore had been comparatively small
~ and it was only because of the extra
' large sum that had been placed there al
g trap that brought the offense if there
is an offense, up to the notch that give!
ar it penitentiary attachment. 1t will bC
Is seen that there are many close point.
t. in the case and there is no doubt tha
the attorney that Neville has choser
T. will raise them and many more.
Some of the friends of the coloret
, janitor insist that he did not take thu
money at all, as he did not steal, takt
W. and carry away" within the meaning O.
the statutes as he did not get away
TO from the scene of the alleged crime a
all, being caught before he moved from
e. the safe. Whether he intended to pu
n some of it back is not known. But ther,
ee are decisions that refer to the taking o
money or other valuables from thei
IN place of safe-keeping, whether they ar
u carried away or not. One decision GOV
ers a case where a clerk took roll o
bills from a cash drawer. He had thu
a bills in his hand and was about to show
them into his pocket, when he LOOKED
err around, saw that he was detected, anC
y. put the money back into the drawer
d. He was arrested and charged with tn
crime of grand larceny. 1t was con
ceded in his behalf that he was no
guilty as he had not taken the money
having only temporarily disturbed II
J. He claimed further on the trial, that h
did not, in fact intend to steal 1t. TIL
contention availed him nothing. TIL
case was fought to the supreme cour
and it was decided that he did in fac
"a steal the money inasmuch as he TIL
Is it from the money drawer, where it be
4 longed. 1t was not his to remove
I'd hence the removal was larceny, unde
IN the law.