Five Mile Beach weekly journal., 1923-01-12
Rosetta Shop Robbery Case
on Trial This Week
Willie Jacobs, Sam Surman and
Simon Jaffe Found Guilty


in the firm conducting the business,
was next called. He stated that his
firm did not always tag their sweaters
upon sending them to the shop, and
told of having received a phone mes
sage about the robbery on the Sd and
of going to Wildwood from Philadel-
phia that afternoon. When asked as
to the extent of the loss he said he
left all stock records to his brother
in-law, Mr.. Cohn.
Chas. Unfreed, detective for the City
of Wildwood, and the chief witness for
the state, was the next person to take
the witness stand. officer Unfreed
stated that he had been in the habit
of stopping in the shop every day or
two and so was aware of the condi-
tions of the shop. He told of being
called on the morning of the robbery
and of the condition of the store upon
his arrival. In this description he re-
iterated the statements of the former
witnesses as to the broken glass, bat
tered window sash, stripped models,
etc. He then told of making investi-
cations about Wildwood and of appre-
hending Willie and Amen Jacobs. He
then told of going to Philadelphia
where, assisted by Detective Test, Of
getting Mary Bracken and Freeland
Arnold, and of taking the red sweater,
previously mentioned in the case, from
Mary Bracken. After getting these
two prisoners he phoned Chief of Po-
lice Cobb, of Wildwood, he stated. He
then told of getting a written state
ment from Freeland Arnold. (This
statement was here introduced as evil
dence and handed to the clerk for
marking.3 Another phone call to the
Wildwood chief followed and he then
returned to Wildwood where he found
three of the band in the city Jail.
When asked about the sweaters used
as evidence in the case he stated that
he had first seen n batch of them at
the home of John Conley, on Garfield
avenue. Another batch was found at
1920 North Arbor street, Philadelphia,
and was recovered from John Frey.
Another package had been received by
him from Frey on the date of the trial
and still another package had arrived
from Westville, N. j., following a let
ter written from him to that place.
Cross-examination here took place by
Attorney MeHenry, in which he asked
officer Unfreed how long he had been
connected with police work. Ten
years was the reply. McHenry now
asked about the interview between
Unfreed and Arnold in Captain Soud-
ers' rooms and asked if Detective Cree
don had not been present at this time.
Unfreed stated that several men were
in and about the room, but he could
not say definitely as to whether Cree
don had been present or not. Nc
Henry now asked him if he had not
told Arnold that he had received state
ments from the others in the crowd
and hat they had RATED" Unfreed
replied that he never used hat term.
He stated when questioned that he
had heard the term used, however, in
criminal lingo. When further asked
as to what expression he had made to
get Arnold's statement, he stated that
this paper was forthcoming upon the
urging of Mary Bracken that Arnold
tell the truth" Some questioning by
Sooy as to the occurrence on Addison
street closed the work for the morning
and a recess was declared by the
Court for luncheon.
After the luncheon recess Cohn was
again called to the stand and stated
that the loss was between IL and Is
dozen sweaters amounting to about
81, 500. This total included art work,
silks, yarns and other goods stolen
besides the sweaters. Unfreed was
now recalled to the stand and was
shown a window weight which he
identified as one having been laying
inside the window on the morning
after the robbery. He vas next shown
a piece of broken window frame,
which he recognized as one he had
removed from the real window on the
morning Of the Sd. He stated that the
been taken to Philadelphia to get
finger prints examined that were on
it, but that these prints were so
blurred that they proved of little use
in the case of trailing the gang.
Freeland Arnold was now called to
the stand Immediately following the
recess at noon Attorney McHenry had
stated to the court hat his client, Ar
mold, wished to change his plea from
not guilty to guilty on the charge of
breaking and entering and larceny.
This change of plea was permitted by
the state and the court. Arnold, when
he took the stand, was therefore ex-
pected to make some surprising dis
closures in his testimony. This ex-
p~ectation proved in vain, for he gave
little new information concerning the