Year: 1879

SUNDAY MORNING ROBBERY AND WHAT


RIous sFENCE" BROKEN UP BY THE POLICE.


Tho milliners' supply store OF Israel spingarn.
No. 81 Division street. was forcibly entered between
two and three O'Clock on the morning Of Sunday,
October g. ana robbed Of ST. 900 worth of silks. The
thieves made their way fence at the rear into
house ON East Broadway. and thence to that
thoroughfare. There they were observed by .
private watchman. who suspecting something
wrong. they were carrying large bag and two
parcels Of heavy material. followed them and
saw them enter q building occupied by
known 'fcnce." Placing party on the
watch he hurried of for the policeman
the beat. who. it happened was patroling it that
night for the first time The two returned and found
that the thieves had left without their spoil. They
demanded admittancc. but were refused because
they had search warrant. Later in the day Mr..
spngarn discovered that he had been robbed. and
comforting with the watchman they came to the
conclusion that his goods those the latter and
the policeman tried to obtain in the early dawn Of
the morning. The next day Spingarn reported the
affair the police and directed to Essex Market
Police Court. There Justice Morgan refused to grant
search warrant because OF the lack OF legal evil
dence that the packages were Spingarn's goods and
though nearly three weeks have elapsed. nothing
has been heard OF the thieves. the goods or the
receiver, save that he moved out OF the precinct





ing done in obedience to orders from the
Captain of the Seventh precinct. To show tho
for his complaint MIR. Spingarn cites the case
OF Isaac Rubinstein. of No. 45 Canal street. whose
goods. stolen on the morning OF September IL. were
recovered from the same 'fence. or receiver OF
stolen goods, ON the very day OF the theft.


CAPTAIN M'ELwAIS's STATEMENT.


Captain McElwain stated to the reporter that. had
the robbery been reported Immediately on the sun
day morning, he would have searched the receivers
premises, and would, doubt, have found the
goods; but the demand OF the officer for admittancc
had nj IN 4 no
been granted n search would have proved iruitess.
He however. called tho party and was invited TO
make a search. which. OF course, he declined
TO do. He notified him. however that
leave the precinct. and that while the latter
remained u close watch would be kept on his prem
ses. This done, until at last the receiver. say
time his wife or daughter left the house with
bundle an officer would step up to ask them what it
contained shifted his quarters from the precinct to
some unknown locality ON Wednesday last Further
than this, said tho Captain. our precinct detective Is
on the lookout night and day for traces Of the thieves
or the property. .ll.l


Superintendent Wang. when spoken TO of the
case said the preliminary warning and subsequent
delay had caused all tho difficulty and even II they
should now hnd the goods all marks by which they
could be Identified would be removed, SO that tho
legal proof necessary to their recovery by Spingarn
or the conviction of the thieves would be wanting.
while deeply regretted the lack of evidence that
would have enabled him to arrest and convict tho
receiver.


taken in the Rubinstein case, they seemed only
know of IL by hearsay, visit was paid to the store
of the latter No. 40 Canal street. and the reporter
was there informed that tho theft took place Just
after daylight on sunday, September IL, and friend
Of the proprietor, who saw the thieves leave the
store with the goods-nineteen pieces Of silk and
other stunfollowed theln. AS soon as they catered