Year: 1876




Yesterday, before Judge W. B. Smell, IN the
Police Court, R. D. Rufiin was arraigned on
the charge OF stealing gold chain, the prop
erty of D. w. Classic, and valued at $50. The
accused entered plea Of not guilty, and was
defended by Gen. Sol. Henkle.


Mr.. D. W. Classic was the first witness
called, and testified that the claim, with other
things, was stolen from his house on the 10Th
of April, since which time he has not seen 1t,
although he had heard of it. Mr. Ruffin had
called on witness several times in relation TO
the chain, saying that the mother of the boy
Msrlow, charged with stealing It, had the
chain in her possession, and was anxious to
have It returned to him, but was afraid to do
so, fearing the consequences of the larceny.
Ruffin appeared to be negotiating for return
of the chain, so as not to have prosecution OF
either the boy or his mother. Ruffin asked
him If there was no way of saving the boy.
Witness insisted on the return OF the chain,
and told him there was no way to save him
unless the witnesses failed to come to trial.
Ruffin told witness that the chain had been
left with him, (R., with the request that 1t be
restored, without prosecution OF either her
self or the boy. On the day of the trial he
told witness that he was willing to give up the
chain. -r.-


MRS. MARLcw, MOTHER OF THE BOY,
WAb Qe1b Calltu, huu ItbIlutu tudk ucT UOy Wdb
arrested on the 18th of September. She went
to see Mr.. Classic about having the chain re-
turned to him. She finally got the chain from
boy and took 1t to Rufin. He (R.) gave her
q card with some writing on 1t, telling her to
take it to Mr.. Classics office and lay it on his
desk. She also gave him the chain, and after
wards went to see her boy in jail to tell him
not sure 1t was the right one she went to see
Mr.. Ruffin to ascertain If it was the chain be-
longing to Mr.. Classic. She went on to de-
tail the circumstances in which Ruffin was
connected, showing disposition on his part
TO keep possession Of the chain, as she was not
just then able to pay him fee to defend her
son. She had not seen the chain since she
handed it to him. He told her that he would
keep it in his possession, as the detectives
might 60 to her house and search for it, and
they could find pins point. He also said


HE WOULD GET LAWYER RIDDLES HELP
TO defend the boy, and they would clear him,
and keep the chain too. He had never refused
to give it to her, but never had it when she
went to get it, nor never advised her to give it
up to Mr.. Classic.


Detective Coomesitestiiedt to being a witness
in the Criminal Court on the trial of the boy
NARROW. Mrs. NARROW on that occasion told
the Judge that Ruffin had the chain, which he
denied 10 the Judge. Afterwards at police
headquarters Rufin told wiress that he would
see party, and he though ht that in day or
two he could reach the chain. He did not own
that he had IL, but Mrs. NARROW insisted that
she gave it to him on the street.


TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.


John Cherry was called and testified to be-
ing present in Ruffin's Office when Mrs. Mar
low was there. Saw Ruffin hand her hand
kerchief, at the same time telling her, "here's
your handkerchief and chain; I'll have no
1o ha
handkerchief and saw something in It like a
chain. They then both went into the hall to-
gether and came back. Witness saw it dis
tinctly and took notice Of it, because he had
heard something about the chain before.


A coiored woman, named Garnett, testified
to being present at the time; saw Rutfin hand
Mrs. NARROW the handkerchief, but did not
see the chain. Here Mrs. NARROW was re-
called and said there was not q word said by
Ruffin, except to ask witness out into the
hall. He handed her her handkerchief, but
there was no chain in It, and nothing was said
about a chain. This occurred on Wednesday,
before the trial of her boy.


The evidence here closed, and the counsel for
the defense asked the discharge of his client,
on the ground that nothing had been proven
against him


His Honor thought different, and sentenced
him to six months in jail. An appeal was
taken and bonds fixed at $500.


But at 2 o'clock, when the van was making
its last trip to the jail for the day, and Ruffin
had tailed to procure his bondsman, he was
cufied to another prisoner and carried down to
the Hotel de Crccker.


This is the sequel to the case of the young
10y NARROW, whose was tried last week in the
Criminal Court, where Ru:fin appeared as
counsel to defend him. After the conviction
of the lad the fact was developed that Rufin,
a pension lawyer, had taken the chain, por-
ton of the stolen property, as retaining fee
for defending the accused, and when charged
by Judge 0lin with 1t told two deliberate lies
to try and escape detection. He deserved to
have been in prison long ago, for the deception
and fraud practiced on his own race, and it is
to be hoped that he will serve out his six
months to the minute.