Case Name: Pennsylvania v. Henry Becomb, John Reading, James Eckles, and Samuel Dickson
Court: Westmoreland County Court
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1799-03
Citations: 1 Add. 386
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pennsylvania v. Henry Becomb, John Reading, James Eckles, and Samuel Dickson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Addison
Volume: 1
Pages: 386–389

Head Matter:
WESTMORELAND COUNTY.
March Term, 1799.
Pennsylvania v. Henry Becomb, John Reading, James Eckles, and Samuel Dickson.
THESE men lived on the frontier of Westmoreland, near Lycoming county. Becomb and Reading went, as they said, to trade with two Indians, who had a hunting camp on the frontier of Lycoming, near Westmoreland county. They had with them half a peck of salt to buy deerskin for moccasins. On their way, they persuaded one Shallenberger, (a lad who then worked at a house to which the Indians sometimes came, to trade for corn) to go with them, to shew them the camp ; and he took with him half a gallon of whiskey. The Indians were absent, when they went to the camp. There was no fire in the camp ; but there were deerskins there hanging on poles, bearskins, deer-tallow, bear and deer meat, &c. Becomb and Reading carried off twenty-six deerskins ; and a few days after returned with Eckles and Dickson, and they plundered the camp of every thing, except a little deer-meat.
The Indians had behaved peaceably, occasionally came into the settlement to trade, and traded honestly. Finding their camp plundered, one of them came to the house where Shallenberger had worked, and, by signs, complained of their loss. Some men of the house returned with him to the camp; where the Indians signified the articles which they had lost; shewed, by a notched stick, on which they had marked an inventory of their peltry, that they had been plundered of sixty-eight deerskins, and nine bearskins; and, signified the loss of about 40lb. weight of deer-tallow, 60lb. of bear meat, two yards of brown woolen cloth for leggings, two yards of callico, and one cotton handkerchief. The men to whom the Indians thus disclosed their loss, conducted them to a magistrate, who, on their complaint, issued a warrant to search for the goods, and, on the information of Shallenberger, a warrant to apprehend Becomb and Reading, and also Eckles and Dickson, against whom suspicions appeared. Becomb and Reading were committed to gaol; but, there not being sufficient proof against Eckles and Dickson, they were discharged. On a further search, the constable found nineteen deerskins, two bearskins, and a piece of brown woolen cloth, like the leggings which one of the Indians wore, hidden in a bark box under two trees which had fallen near Becomb’s house. Becomb’s wife desired them not to touch the bark, for she had meat there ; and, when opened, she claimed the woolen cloth as hers. Finding the constable would take all away, she declared, that her husband should not suffer alone ; that Eckles and Dickson went with him and Reading, (when these last went the second time to the camp) and were the most urgent to go, and threatened violence to the Indians, if they met them ; and that the skins were equally divided among the four. On her information, the magistrate sent the constable for Eckles and Dickson. Eckles was taken and committed to gaol. Dickson had absconded and was not taken.
While Becomb and Reading were first at the Indian camp, they proposed to Shallenberger, (as he swore) that he should fell his whiskey to them, and they would pay him as well as the Indians would have done. They drank the whiskey. After their return, Becomb and Reading gave Shallenberger seven deerskins, (as he swore) for his whiskey. One of them he had disposed of. The other six he gave up to the magistrate ; which, together with the nineteen found at Becomb’s, made twenty-five of the sixty-eight deerskins stolen; and those, with the two bearskins and piece of brown cloth found at Becomb’s were deposited with the magistrate.
Leach's Ga. 351.
1 Hawk. 143-4.
2 Hawk.622-6.
4Comm. 232.
Becomb and Reading were tried, on one indictment, for stealing twenty-six deerskins; and they and Eckles were tried, on another indictment against them and Dickson, for stealing forty-two deerskins and the rest of the property lost by the Indians.
Brackenridge and Young, for the prisoners.
The taking seems to be proved; but it is not felonious. It was in open day and avowed, and is but a trespass. The property was abandoned, and not in possession of any one. The Indians had no property in the things taken. They had no right to come upon our lands to hunt. They were trespassers on the lands of the state, or of some private person. And felony cannot be committed by taking things whereof no one had property, as wreck, or things ferœ naturœ, as deer, or fish in a river. It may be a misdemeanor ; and, if the jury find it so specially, the court may give judgment, on this indictment, as for a misdemeanor.
Galbraith, for the state.
An indictment lies for stealing goods of a person unknown. This property was as much in possession of its owners, as property of such nature, and of such owners, usually is. An indictment will lie for stealing a horse in a pasture, or in the commons, as well as in the stable.

Opinion:
President.
The taking seems proved ; and the ordinary evidence of the felonious intention, a denial of the act, appears in this case. There is even ground to believe, that they left their homes with this intention. Half a peck of salt was but a poor stock to trade on.
I know no law tendering it unlawful for an Indian, any more than a white man, to hunt on the lands of others. Whether the Indians were trespassers or not, the authorities cited prove that they were not thieves. Their labour in killing the deer and bears, ferœ naturœ, gave the Indians a property in the skins, meat, and tallow of those animals. It would be strange, if the taking could not be felony because it was in the day time, and the offenders impudently avowed it among themselves. The property was as much in the possession of these Indians, as articles of this nature usually are. And if you think the prisoners took and carried them away with an intent of converting them to their own use, without the knowledge of the owners, there is no occasion for your finding a special verdict ; you may find the prisoners guilty.
The jury found them guilty.
Becomb, Reading, and Eckles were then tried on the second indictment, and found guilty.
Note.—Next day, before judgment was given, Becomb broke out of gaol. Reading and Eckles were sentenced to 18 months confinement to hard labour, on the last indictment; and Reading to 6 months additional, on the first: and it was ordered, that the whole should be in the gaol and penitentiary house in Philadelphia.
In the morning after the last verdict was given, a man went into the gaol, to endeavour to get, from Reading and Eckles, information respecting the rest of the skins. They informed where they were hidden ; and messengers were sent to secure them, and restore them to the Indians. The Indians were present at the trial: they appeared to be poor, and from a sense of the loss which they had sustained, and of the danger which resentment for such loss might bring on the frontier inhabitants, and a desire to shew the Indians the benefit of appealing to our tribunals for redress; some gentlemen contributed about 40 dollars, which were laid out in cloathing, and other useful articles for the two Indians ; with which, and assurances of restitution for their property lost, they departed well pleased.