_--....4 ......7--,...-.7.----.- 4 ......,,,
lt ,
. i &
~..
..
- k
__.
TS
r _
l • N • -
1 ~.
k „e.
• , 't
' ' ' Ili . t
.. • "4
...,...., ''' •S
- 4
:!: ..,.... w
* 4 - . •k .
4' t
.‘
1 ._ • _
4 * 4 -.
i ~..,
AP •s-!' ...-*"" * f 1
. 1 4° -•*' .- * 4
•a
\k4tiimefe ,t- 4., l'A
...,..,-:...,....--.. .-,
...." 4*
, t,..
---- .7 - --.-_f_ - : - _--___ - _- _--, %. _ •.. •mg
\... .....- -'---. -...--:-• 4' c
... . . ._.....,.,:... .s. -..- , %-- . •• , * , 4 . vk....5....- _ _
.....-i? - _ - _ - ---- - z, ---7 77 - -----._ - - , . f_4 ' ' 1 0% 4
--- --- - --=-,- - r - --, - --
BY GEORGE BERGNER.
pail g Ceitgrapil
` 411. ;OPINION
OF 'TECE
RON. JOHN J. PEARSON,
Overruling the motion fora new trial, in the case
of P. Bill, convicted of embezzlement at
the last term of the Court of Quarter Ses . .sicms
—with the sentence of the, Court—delivered
Monday, February 22, 1864.
Commonwealth) No. 1, of Nov. session, 1863.
vs. }- Indictment for embezzle-1
F. P. ) ment.
The defendant having been indicted and
convicted under the 107th section of the penal
code, for embezzeling the money of the Phila
delphia and Reading railroad company, in
whose employment it is averred he was as a
conductor, a motion has been made for a
new trial on account of misdirection of the
court in matter of law, and also in arrest of.
judgment for defects in the indietinent We
will, for the greater convenience, dispose of
the last question first. lt is complained in
the reasons filed that no distinct act of em
bezzlement is charged—that no ownership
in the money alleged to have been embezzeled
is averred, and more than one offence is
laid in, the same count. In addition, our
attention has been directed to certain other
alleged defects on the argument. Our act of
Assembly is measurably framed from the 7th
and Bth George the 4th; but is rather broader
in its provisions than the British statute,
which speaks of "clerks and servants or per,
sons employed, in the capacity of clerks or
servants," whilst our act says, "any clerk,
servant or other person in the employment of
another." Both provide, in almost the same
words, for proceeding against the pa.itY for
any distinct acts of embezzlement, not ex-,
ceeding three in number, which may have
been committed within six months of each
other. We may, therefore, look with confi
dence to . the precedents adopted - in. Great ,
Britain as our guide for framing indictments,
under our act which is comparatively new. i
The pleader appears to have almost literally
followed the form to be found in Wharton's
criminal precedents, with the single excep
tion of laying three distinct acts of .embezzle
*Ment, committed pu., different -days, in the
.same count. This is considered ea an irreg
ularity, in Regina vs. Purchase, 10. and Man.
617, cited in 3d Arch. C. P. 447-5 in notes.
It was also held in-'Rex vs. 'Williams:6 'C.
and P. 626, that where there is but one count,
aildithe prisoner received different sums on
different days, the 'prosecutor must elect
some one sum, and confine himself to that, -
*+lid could not give evidence of money receiv
ed on other days. Archibold, who probably
furnishes the best criminal precedents to be
found at the present day, gives the - form of
each of the additional counts, so . 'to em
brace all of the three (Efferent times of em
bezzlement in one indictment. It is certain
.
•b, ziuch safer to follow such ft glliae:illan to
atterep.' t e frame new precedents. The legal
ma •
via t api
rita Ales with great force in criminal
cases
est tutissima, and the pleader
,
always runs grea „` risk when he, departs_ fro_ni
the trodden path any, attempts tasave tabor by
a near cut,., Iteisevera: distinct offences are
Jo'
thrown intoson'e - count, it likely to create
jal:de t .;especially when, ae here, the de
-.lltis charged with receiving
,gt gross sum
lire& di*s, instead of stating the amount
- eivedon'each day: The precise sum which
came to his hand in any one day need not be
proved, nor need the prosecution describe or
prove the kind of money, but it should be
averred, as directed by-the statute, that each
day laid was within six months after the pre
ceeding day on which an. act' of embezzle
ment is charged, and• such appears to be the
precedents and decisions. R. vs. Purchase,
Car,i,M. 617, R. , Npolm, 2 Car. & H. 620.
It is a general rule that every indictment upon a
statute must state all such facts and circum
stances as constitute the statutory offence, and
bring the party within its pro Visions. 1 Chitty's
cram. law 281, 2 & 3—Ed. of 1841; and by the
common law4is not sufficient to use the words
of the statute merely, but there must be
proper description of the character of the per
son, and of the crime committed, laid- with
suitable averments of time, place, &0. The
11th section of the second part of the Penal
Code declares, in regard to this subject, that
"every indictment shall be deemed and ad=
judged sufficient and good in law which_
charges the crime substantially in the lan
guage of the act of Assembly, prohibiting the
crime, and prescribing the punishment." This
provision was certainly intended to do away
with part of the particularity of decskiption
previously held necessary. The statute is reme
dial, and should be so 'construed as to avoid
the inconvenience formerly , existing, and ad
vance the remedy provided by the Legislature.
This indictment avers that ..the.defendant was
employed as a conductor to the -Philadelphia
and Reading H. E. Co., and did.,:hYiiitue of
his employment, and while he was So oniploygd,
"
receive and take into his possession. - " , certain
.ether moneys, to wit: one thousand dollars.
for* and in the name, and on account of the
said Philadelphia and Reading H.R. Co., and
the money so received fraudulently and felo
niously did embezzle and'convert to his own
use. It then goes on to aver that the defend-.
ant, the said money, the property ofthe Phil
adelphia andßeading R. ItCo. t from the said
company feloniously did steal, S;e:::- Now,
these averments aro in the very langiiage of
the act of Assembly, which speaks of clerks,
servants, or other person in the employment
of another, by
- virtue of such employment re
keiving and taking into their possession any
ohattel, money, for or in the name, or
or the account of such master or employer,
ana`fraudulently embezzlhig the same, or
any
part thereof, &c.
I am - unable to see how , the fact of em
bezzlin3 and converting the-money by the de
fendant, or its ownership 'by the company,
could be more clearly and dist f indtly averred.
The indictment also conforms in ibis particu
lar to the precedents to be foundinArchibold,
Wharton and other form bookaaThe 88th sec.'
of the second part of the penal code relating
to embezzlement, also provides that if the em.
bezzlemerit be of money; no particular kind
need be described, nor need any partietaar
amount be proved. Vie conside'r the, owner
ship of the money well laid, and, if necessa:
t 7, the averments of employment, ownership,
k,c., in the second count can be called in. aid
of those in the third. Chitty, in work on
1, .
criminal law, vol. • p 205, 'says, "although
every count should appear upontheof
it to charge the defendant with a &din face.
of:
, . .
fence, yet one count may refer to matter in
another count so as to avoid unnecessary rep
etition, &c., and although the first count
should be defective, or rejected by the grand
jury, this circumstance will not vitiate the
residue," and we may safely add that it can be
referred to for such purposes, although aban
• aimed on the trial. That 'count very fully
and particularly desMibes the employment of
the defendant, by the railroad company, the
character of the emploYment; and his receipt
of the money by virtue thereof, and the
ownership of the money. But it has been
suggested on the argument that a conductor
on a railroad train does not come. within the
act of Assembly; that he is not such an em
ployee as is therein described, and we are re
ferred to 2 Met., 343, where it is held that an
auctioneer is not within the Massachusetts act;
to 11 Met., 64, which decides thatthe collector
of bills for a newspaper is not embraced by its
.provisions, and to 5 Denio, in which it is set
tled by the Supreme Court of New York, that
a constable employed to collect bills, if volun-
Mrily by the debtors, and to sue them
when not so paid, is not embraced by the laws
Of' that State. It must be borne in mind that
our statute is differently worded from those of
either of the States mentioned. They speak of
'clerk' or servant, ours of "clerk, servant, or
other person in the employ of another;" and we
all know that the conductor of a railroad train
is a persop. in .the employ-of the company,
which is almost daily held responsible for his
acts or negligencei. I should have no more
considered an auctioneer as the clerk or ser
vant of the man who sends goods to his room
to be sold, than is an attorney at law who
holds himself out as a collector to all who
choose to employ him; or a commission mer
chant who professes to sell for any one•who
consigns him goods. The soundness of the
casein 11 Metcalf is very questionable, as it is
in, direct conflict with two decisions under
the English statute, R. & Ry. 198, 3 Stark. N.
P., cases 70, in both of which it was held that
an agent, employed by many firms to -travel
the country and make collections, was a clerk
or servant who might be convicted of embez
zlement, and even when the embezzlement
charged' was by an employee who was to have
a certain percentage on the sales, though not
a partner, it was held that he was a servant
within the statute. 3 Arch. C. Pl. 449, 2in
note. I haie, therefore, no doubt that a con
ducter of a railroad train is a person emplOyed
by another within our act of Assembly, and as
such may be . guilty of embezzling the funds
of the company; and also, that the employ
ment,
the ownership, of the money, and the
felonious embezzlement thereof, are all suffi
ciently and properly laid in this indictment,
:when we:look into both counts. But the two
exceptions already referred to—the blending
of three days in one count, and laying a
joint receipt of the' money on those three days,
and the failure to aver that the embezzlement
of the money reeeived on each day occurred
within six months of the time laid for the
offence of the preceding day, are fatal, unless
the defect is cured by the act of Assembly.
rite eleventh section of the second part of the
penal code,already recited, in part, provides:
"Every objeetiCin to airy ~..afAt.n atait for . any__
formai defect, apparent on -the face - Inereot,
shall be taken by demurrer, or on motion to
quash such indictment; before the jury shall
be sworn, and not _afterwards." We cannot
doubt but that the object of the commission
ers who-framed, and the Legislature who
passed this law, was to get rid of the formal
defeets orhnhiari3roceedings, which had
long been considered by the'ablest writers on
jurisprudence 'a blemish and shameful defect
in the criminal laws of the country; "that
justice was entangled in a net of form," giving
just ground for the criticism of Montesque,
"that laws are like cobwebs, tha, smelt flies
are caught, but the great ones break through."
It was no longer to be endured dig after a
full trial on the merits a party should be heard
on formal defects, apparent on the face of the
indictment, which if taken before, would have
been amended on motion, or :a new bill sent
before, the, grand jury. The whole spirit of
the code evinces a determination to do away
with 'technicalities' in criminal trials, and
reach the substance of the. case; and it is the
duty - of the courts to carry the Legislative in
tention into effect. 'Hence is given the au
thority to amend the indictment when any
formal" defect is pointed' out, or to make it
correspond - with the evidence, whether oral or
_written, when there is a material variance; to
lay the ownership of parties differently from
thatheretofore allowed, and so in many other
essential particulars. If the defects referred
to in the presentindictmentare merely formal,
it 'is too late" to take them. • If substantial, the
defendant is still in time.
The substantial rights of a defendant are to
I be so fully apprised of the offence with which
[-he is charged as to enable him to meet it by
evidence, and to have the crime so clearly
described•that whether acquitted or convicted,
the charge never can be brought against him
a second time. The defendant has as full
notice that he is charged with three distinct
acts of embezlement, when the , indictment
states that the acts were committed on the
17th, the 22d and 24th days of September,
1863, as though they had been laid in three
several;: saints. Laying the money as re
cSfred on all three of the days, instead of
stating the amount received on each day, is
to him wholly unimportant; as the Statute
provides that the Common Wealth need not
make proof of-the amount, -or kind of, money
which he embezzled on any day or tbne, and
the failure to aver that the sums were embez
zled within six months of each other, is in
the present ease, mere form, as the days of
the respective receipts are stated, and the in
dictment was preferred to, and found by the
grand jury, within three months, from the
date of the receipt. We are of the opinion
that all of these defects are merely formal,
and are cured by the act of Assembly, when
not objected to in a preliminary stage of the
proceeding, by demurrer or on a motion to
quash the indictment; therefore the judgment
cannot be arrested. The next question for
our consideration relates to the alleged mis
direction of the jury by the court, upon the
trial. We instructed them that if Friji was
employed either -try or for the Philadelphia and
Reading Railroad Company as a conductor on
its trains, was paid a portion of Ms wages,
either directly by that company, or Indirectly
through settlement with the connecting coin
panies--byvirtae of his employment, received
the money belonging to the Philadelphia and
Reading company, and by the terms of his
contract. was bound to account for, and pay
i , ler'tei it the morieyreceived on its road, he
pioperly be considered a person in
the employ of that company," and if he em
bezzled its money could be convicted of the
offence. That the proper test of being in the
employ of another was the contract of hiring,,
which could be done directly, or through the' I
HARRISBURG, PA., WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24, 1864
'agency of another, the obligation to pay, or
actual payment of wages, and the right to dis
charge the party from service in case of mis
behavior or neglect of duty. Mr. Nicol's,
called by the Commonwealth, testified in sub
stance, that four distinct companies owned
the railroad from this place to New York;
it was agreed that the New Jersey, Philadel
phia and Reading companies should each lint
nish a train; conductor, baggage master an
brakesmart, the wages of these employees were
to be paid by each company in proportion to
the distance traveled over its road, and settled
by monthly statements between the companies;
the money received for each road, was, by the
regulations furnished the conductors, to be
paid over to the clerk of the proper company
daily.. It was agreed that each.company was
to :appoint a conductor, an& the wages were
to be paid pro rata, according to the distance
passed over each road. Hill was appointed a
conductor by the New Jersey company, and
bl that arrangement he became a conductor
on the Philadelphia and Reading railroad, and
was paid by them through monthly statements'
as agreed.
The various conductors did not remain on
any, particular train, but Mr. Wing, appointed
by the Philadelphia and. Reading company,
and Mr. Hill changed trains to suit their con.-
Anience.
Mr. Sterns, the superintendent of the New
Jersey road, called by, the defendant, states the
arrangement between the four companies as
to trains, conductors, tte., mainly as proved
by Mr. Nicolls ; says in substance that their
company appointed and paid Hill, but received
the proportion of his wages from the Phila.- -
delphia and Reading and the other compa
nie,s.,. He with instructed to carry out the or
ders of each company, and to pay to each the
money received on its road, and to make four
separate reports. He was to Ray over to the
Philadelphia and Reading company the money
received on its road, and carry out its instruc
tions. It was by the authority of the .Phila
delphia and Reading company that he . re
ceived any fare on that road.. It could have
put him, off that company's road, if itthought
proper, but not off the New Jersey road. In
another part of his evidence the 'witness
stated that the Philadelphia and Reading
company, had no right to discharge Mr. Hill
from its road ;he was not in its employ. He
(the witness) could not see how it would - get
clear of him, except by breaking up the ar
rangement. But again he stated that if found
dishonest or careless, that company could
have put him off its end or part of the road,
if it thought proper, and it had to pay itspor
tion of Hill's wages. We called the attention
of the jury particularly to the statements of
this witness, and pointed out its contradic
tions, not that we supposed there was, any in
tention to misstate the facts, but the 'Nvitness
undertook to draw legal deductions, and was
not consistent therein. We then stated to
the jury that if the Philadelphia and Reading
company neither hired the defendant nor paid
him, or was bound to pa y his wages and had
no power to discharge him for dishbilesty or
carelessness, he was not in its employ, with
in the meaning of the act of Assemby, and
altbAligh.he_w 9 ,
ekt- 1 --renaiv4
tif - mat company, denied its re
niched false statements thereof, it was not
money received - belonging to his master or
employer by virtue of such employment; but
if the arrangement was as stated by Mr.
Nicolls, he might properly be considered in
the employ of that company, and could be
guilty of embezzling its money. Were we
right in that instruction?
Bishop, in his work on criminal law, vol.
2, s. 288, lays down the general principle that
"a person may be the servant or clerk of a
particular individual or corporation, though
the appointing power is in another ;"and again,
"the servant or clerk need not have received
a formal appointment in fact, and certainly
none need be-proved, if only he has been per
mitted to ad, .and has acted in that capacity,
and this is shown." The authorities cited
fully sustain the principle—see 1 Moody, 434,
25 Eng. Law and E., 579, 23 L. J. N. S. M.
C., 110, 18Jur., 408, 24Eng. L. and. E., 568, 6
Car. and P., 606, 1 Moody, 474, Cox and M.,
178, 1 Car. and P., 457. It matters not how
the clerk or servant may be appointed; he may
be clerk for . one though appointed by an
other. 8 Car. and P., 174. '
In Reg. vs. Batty, 2 Moody 258, it is said
in general terms, "the wages made the prisoner
a servant,''-' though the wages are only to be
considered in connection with other circum
stances. The mode of payment, or probably
whether the person is to be paid at all or not,
has no controlling effect on the question
whether he is a servant, clerk or the like, if
only it does not operate to place him in some
relation incompatible with this ; such, for in
stance, as to make him a partner; 2 Bishop; C.
L. L, 289. In Regina vs. Bayley, 37 Eng.
Law and E., we have the case of four railroad
companies which had one • common depot.
They employed a committee to attend to the
business thereof, or conducted thereat, who
employed the servants. A package came by
one company, a servant delivered it as was his
duty, but-embezzled a pOrtion orthe receipts,
held that he might , be indicted for embezzling
the funds of that company, or it might be
laid as the funds of the committee. He was
the servant hired by the one, but forlhe joint
benefit of all the companies, and bound to
render a proper account of the funds received
from each, pro hace vice; he was , the servant
of each." It has also been held that where a
servant is employed 'by a firm, he is so far to
be considered - the Servant of the individual
partners, as to be capable of embezzling the
property of the one of them, waken' the pro
visions of the statute, 3 Starkie 70, 8 Car. and
P. 742, he may be the servant of many per
sons at the same time. Rus. By. 198,
Reg. vs. Batty, 2 Moody, 257. Applying these
principles to the case before us, we think that
they abundantly prove that where the party
charged with embezzlement, was at the time
of committing the act, in the actual employ
ment of the person or corporation whose pro
perty was embeezted, it matters not whether he
was hired by that person or not, so that he
was employed for him, and by virtue of such
employment received the money. If the New
Jersey company, employed the defendant for
the benefit of all these four companies, his
wages were paid by them, he was to receive
the money of each, and to pay it over to the
company for which it was received, he was
to all legal intents and purposes in its employs
pro haee vice, and could, as to it, be guilty of
embezzlement. After receiving its wages and
paying over its funds for some two years, the,
defendant is too late to say that he is not in
its employment. We have no doubt that if
any one had been injured in person or pro
perty on the Philadelphia and Reading Rail
road through the carelessness of Mr. Hill,
whilst conducting his train, that company
would have been held responsible, and we do
not believe that it would have had any remedy
over against the New Jersey Railroad com
pany; and further, if Hill had been injured or
killed whilst on this road, through the care
lessness of the Philadelphia and Reading com
pany, he or his representatives would have
been without redress,, as he would have been
accounted an -employee of that company.
This is entirely unlike the ease reported in 5
13arnwell' and Cre,swells47 '
where the owner of
i
'a - earrag e fired Horses' froma livery Man, who
senthis own servant to drive them, and it was
held that the owner of the carriage was not
accountable 'for the' carelessness" of of the
driver, by which another horse was injured,
as the driver was not in his employ, nor un
der his eontrol. We have carefully examined :
the whole class of cases referred to in the
English and American reports, where it is
held that the party is not accountable for em
bezzlement, either because he was not a clerk
or servant, being a public officer, and em
ployed as such, or not the servant, or in the
employmentof the person whose property was
embezzled, or engaged for the particular oc
casion, and out of the course of his ordinary
duties, and consider that "the- present ease is
plainly distinguishable iron)! them. • This de
fendant was, as we conceive, in the. employ
of the Philadelphia and Reading company,
though hired by another for it, in
common with the other oompanies..that it
was part of his duty, and in the very nature
of his employment, to receive the money of
this company, and therefore he comes within
the letter and intention of the statute. We
conceive that his case is covered by that class
of decisions which hold that a person may be
the clerk or servant of one, though appointed
by another, and is stronger than that of Rex
vs. Beacall, 1 C. Jc P. 457, where it was held
that ifa person was employed as the servantuf
a corporation, he might be guilty of embezzle
ment, though not duly appointed. The great
object of these statutes is to protect employ
ers against the dishonesty of their employees,
who receive money into their hands and fraud
ulently secrete and embezzle, instead of pay
ing it over ; and were intended to cover all
such dishonest cases -of fraud as do not
amount to larceny ; for if the money be once
in the possession, either actual or-construct
ive, of the employer, it is larceny in the ser
vant to abstract it. And in construing this
law we must endeavor to prevent the mischief
against which, it was most especially aimed.
It is greatly to be regretted that in passing
our act of Assembly, the code commissioners
had not adopted a provision, to be found in
the statutes of New" York and Massachusetts,
bringing cases within the penalty where an
employer received ""any money, goods; rights
in action, or valuable security or effects what
ever belonging to any other person, winch shall
have come into his possession or under his
care by virtue of such employment." It
wordd have covered a whole class of cases
over which the English courts have been.
much perplexed, embracing all of those where
tk clerk or servant, by virtue of his employ-
Plant, received and afterwards embezzled the
property of third persons, entrusted to them—
as packages sent by mail carriers, railroad
Jrsi, and üblie or private messages of
ri•lntactr" ' e . .e.nleyer.iguder
these statutes, the courts of mos . (' Mates nave
construed the law to cover every case of
goods received by virtue of the employment
of a hired clerk, servant or employee, belong
ing to any other than the person so employed,
Whether-of the Master or another (see 15
Wend, 147, 2 Metcalf, 343, 346.) And had
our act been so worded, the question pre
sented in this case never could have arisen—
it would have been tee plain for argument.
After the most careful consideration Of the
subject, we are satisfied that the instruction
given 'to the jury was correct; and that tri
bunal decided according to the weight of evi
dence---that the defen.dantwas, at the time of
committing the offence charged, in the em
ployment of the Philadelphia *and Reading
Railroad Company. Consequently this mo
tion, . both for a new trial and in arrest of
judgment, must be overruled, and judgment
rendered in favor of the Commonwealth on
the verdict. JOHN J. PEARSON,
President Judge.
2111
ANNOUNCEMENT OE SENTENCE
After the delivery of the above opinion, the
District Attorney, A. J. Herr, moved that
sentence .be announced, whereupon his Honor
addressed the prisoner, - viz:
F. P. Hill:—You have been indicted, and
after a full, fair, and impartial trial, convicted
of feloniously embezzling the money of your
employer, the Philadelphia and Reading Rail
road Company.
The law of the land treats this crime as one
of the deepest dye. It is in many of its fea
tures worse than ordinary larceny, for besides
dishonestly converting the property of another
to you" own use, it is a gross breach of trust,
thereby destroying the c'onfidence that man
should have in his fellow man. '
Locks and bolts and vigilance may gdard
against the depredations of the thief, but how
shall the owner protect himself against the
plundering propensities of the man whom he
employs to guard his treasures and transact
his business?
Thereis but too much reason to believe
that this course of, plunder by railroad con
ductors, ticket agents, and other employees,
has been, in many parts of the United States,
reduced to a regular system, and the thefts
from railroad companies may -be computed
by thousands and, hundreds of thousands,
The demoralization arising from the avidity
for unlawful gain does not stop here, but
seems to permeate almost every portion of
society, from the high and confidential offi
cers of the Government, down through army
and navy contractors, to the pettyest clerk
that attends a dry goods or grocery store, or
the bar of a tavern or restaurant. Strict
scruplous and conscientious honesty may be
considered the exception, and not the rule. It
therefore behooves the judicial tribinuilsi of
the country, charged as they are to a great
extent with the conservation of the public
morals, to promptly and impartially punish
every one who is proved before them to have
participated in this great private and public
wrong. This duty we shall certainly per
form in every case of a conviction on clear
evidence. We have pondered greatly over
your case on account of the high and unex
ceptional character which you have establish
ed. We have given you the benefit of every
doubt arising therefrom, but have been forced
to the conclusion that if the number of detec
tives who have testified were on.the cars un
der your care at the times stated, and you
collected fares from them, as you were bound
to do, that you made ,a false return of the
money received, and feloniously embezzled a
portion of the fare.
Behaving as we do, that your course as a
conductor on the New ..Teraey road must, for
the bat twelve years, have been generally fair
and honest, else jou would not have obtained
the confidence of your employers and the
community in which you lived, yet, we must
deplore that in an evil hour you yielded to
the sin which was so generally besetting - your
brethren on the“Thiladelphia and Reading
railroad, and commenced the - system of petty
plunder which was proved on the trial; thus
not only itrieiting the good name previously
aCquirect, but bringing .on yourself punish-
ment; and on .your family indelible disgrace.
We have most carefully; examined and con
sidered every legal objection raised in your
behalf, both-tei the charge of the court, and
the 'hiding of the pry az to the , character of
your em ployment ; and also as to the validity
of-the ndictment, and haye arrived at the
conclusion i that there is not , even a well
founded technicalrerror in the.proceeding.
You are not to suppose for a moment that
we are about to make you a victim to deter
otheri by the terror of the example in order
to put a stop to this general system of private
plunder. On the contrary, we, as individu
als, deeply commiserate your situation, and
believe you leas guilty than very many others
who have' hitherto escaped detection; but
our sense of 'linty and. the high responsibility
thrown on.na: by official situation, will Rer
reit us to indulge in our , private sympathies;
we are obliged to pronounce upon your crime
a sentence commensurate with its enormity.
The sentence of the law, as pronounced by
the court, is that you pay a fine of one hun
dred dollars to the Commonwealth, the costs
of prosecution, and to undergo imprisonment
in the Eastern penitentiary at solitary con
finement at labor for the period of one year.
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE.
1:454;i0:i0F.1 , 304.•4:4 , .*)"7=ci0)t;11.1:r....y:40 , 4):7.1;“ 4
LM!adLlDEL...2Lialtga
TIMBIJAY, February 23, 1804
The House met at o'clock, and Spent the
evening in the discussion of the resolution
relative to the non-payment to disloyal citi
zens of damages by the rebel raids. Messrs.
BO'rElt and ALLEUIC spoke, and the House
adjoufned.
339 ZeienrctpQ.
FROM WASHINGTON.
OPENING OF TIM PATENT OFFICE FAIR
Capture of. Rebel Letters, Sm.
. WILS.EatinTOII, Feb. 23
OFENDIO OF TES PATENT OFFICE FAIR.
At the opening'of the Patent Office fair last
night, after Mr. Ohittenden had delivered his
speech, Major B. B. French road a patriotic
poem, which was loudly appittuded.
Loud calls then being fin: President
Lincoln; he stepped forward and
_said that
he appeared before the audience to apologize
for not speaking rather - than to'-speak He
thought that the committee had practised a
little frauCon him, for they did not intimate,
when they called to see him in the morning,
that they expected him to speak ; therefore he
had come before the audience totally unpre
pared to say anything; that was taking one at a
great disadvantage; after the eloquent speech of
Mt.Chittenden and the poem of Mr. French,
there was great objection to his saying, any
thing, for necessarily, in consequence of his
position, everything went into print. [Laugh
ter and applause.] If le made any mistakes
it might do both hi self and the nation harm.
[Applause.] It was very difficult to say sen
sible things. [Laughter ] He therefore hoped
that the audience - would excuse him from
expressing his desire that the charitable
enterprise in which they were engaged might
be abundantly successful. *[Applause.],,
CAPTURE OF REBEL ITETTERS, RC
Capt. Scheetz's detectives have lately fer
reted out several lots of rebel letters. The
vigilance of this corps has made epistolary
communications with rebeldom quite perilous.
By their activity they have also captured
quite a quantitY of contraband goods in seve
ral different places. We understand they
have found that a member of the Mar3dand
Legislature, who lives in Southern Maryland,
has secreted a quantity of arms, ammunition
and rebel flags, ke.
lOWA STATE CONVENTION.
Renomination of President Lincoln Ree,om
mended.
Nx Yong, Feb. 23
A special dispatch from Des Moines, lowa,
says that the Union State Convention to
day, by a large majority,,passed resolutions
instructing: their delegates to the National
Union Con.vention to vote-for the re-nomina
tion of President Lincoln.
Another special dispatch from Indianapolis
says that the Union Convention to-day will
be enthusiastic on the re-election of Lincoln,
and will direct the delegates to vote for him.
Gov. MortOn will be re-nominated for the
Governorship by acclamation.
MARKETS BY - TELEGRAPH.
l'iiir..uminnA, Feb. 23.
But little movement in breadstriffs; flour
dull, and 1,000 bbls. Penna. and western ex
tra family sold at $7 25®7 50 and fincy at
$8 50®9, the receipts are very small; Rye
flour steady at $6 25; in corn meal, nothing
doing; fair demand for wheat, and 4,000 bush.
red sold at $1 65, and small lots white at
$1 75®1 95; small sales rye at $1 30; yellow
corn comes forward slowly, and is in de
mand at $1 12; oats steady at 86c: 2,000
bush. malt sold at $1 70®1 73; provisions
held firmly, sales mess pork at $23, hams in
pickle at 13ic and. lard at 144 e in bbls and
tierces, and 16c in kegs; petroleum is quiet at
281 291 e for crude, 45®46 for refined in
bond and 530540 for free; whisky held firm
at 92®94c in bbls. and 90c in drudge.
NEW Yoim, Feb. 23
Cotton is quiet at 79c. Flour dull and de
clined 5c ; sales of 8,000 bbls at $6 25@6 35
for State, S 7 20®7 40 for Ohio, and $8 for
Southern. Wheat dull and nominally lower
_mow° spring $1 56®1 58, Milwankie
club $1 57®1 59, and red $1 65®1 68. Corn
—sales of 41,000 bushelg at $1: 27i0.1 28.
Pork steady—mess $23 50023 75. Lard
steady and urichauged. Whisky nominal and
unobanged.
PRICE TWO CENTS.
FROM TENNESSEE.
12,000 Bales of Hay Destroyed by Fire.
Lioss 0.-eoo,ooo.
Capture of a Rebel Mail, $200,-
000 in Money, Cotton, Horses,
Mules, Wagons, etc.
300 REBELS BAGGED.
LATER FROM NEW ORLEANS,
The steamer Graham, from Memphis, with
dates of yesterday, has -arrived. She brings
ninety bales of cotton for St, Louis.
Twelve thousand bales of bay were burned
at Memphis on the evening of the 20th. The
hay was valued at $200,000, and belongs to
Goff, Cochrane & Co. Another account says
it had been delivered to the Government.
The gunboat Conestoga, ten miles below
the month of Red, river, recently captured
four rebel officers, two of them colonels, while
attempting to cross the river with a large
rebel mail, $200,000 •in New Orleans money,
thirty bales of cotton and a number of mules,
horses and wagons. _ The property was de
livered to the quartermaster at Natchez. The
prisoners were retained on board the gunboat
Manly.
300 rebels have been captured in the neigh
borhood of Helena and sent to Nashville, by
General Buford, during the past month.
The steamer Olive Branch from New Orleans,
with dates to the 15th, has arrived. She brings
91 bales of cotton and a large lot of sugar
and molasses for St. Louis. She also has the
2d Illinois cavalry, Col. Mudd, who have re
enlisted as veterans.
From Fort Monroe.
FoRT MoNßoy., Feb. 22
Washington's birthday *as duly celebrated
to-day in this Department by the firing of a
salute from the battery and the - United states
frigate Minnesota. The English and Russian
frigates lying in Hamptonitoads also honored
the day with salutes. A review of the troops
inside of Fort Monroe also took place.
General Butler returned this morning from
Point Lookout, where he has been on busi
ness for the last two days.
The flag-of-truce steamer New York arrived
this afternoon from City Point. She was de
tained some time by ice in the James river.
Ebenezer Paine, a citizen of Norfolk, was
committed to jail yesterday for attempting to
run the blockade. Michael Heely and Wil
liam Kennedy, charged with desertion, es
coped from Norfolk jail on Saturday night.
A rebel prisoner of war, named- :Tones, has
also escaped from Fort Norfolk.
The Priate Tuscaloosa. Seized by the
British .&tithoritics.
Tim ititrk John Gilpin, which arrived at this
port to-day, brings dates from Cape To*n. to
December 31st.
She reports that the rebel pirate Tuscaloosa
had beeLseized by the British authorities at
the Cape for violation of the neutrality laws,
in landing a portion of her captured cargo on
that coast.
The Tuscaloosa put into Simon's Bay on
December 26th, to obtain supplies and re
paint. Shortly after dropping her anchor,
bir Baldwin" Walter despatched a boarding
party who seized the vessel under the author
ity of the British Government.
The Tuscaloosa was in command of Lieut.
- Lowe, who had returned to Simon's Bay after
a three months' cruise, during which, out of
nearly one hundred vessels, she met only one
'United States ship.
In the meantime she had been ordered
away from a Bralilian port, in consequence
of which her crew were placed upon short al
lowance.
'After the seizure of the vessel, Lieut. Lowe
lodged a formal protest against the proceed
ing and went to Cape Town to consult with
legal advisers.
Mr. Graham, the 11. S. consul, had also
lodged a claim against the vessel in behalf of
her former owners, ,and it was thought that
the question raised as to the legality of her
condemnation by Captain Semmes,who claims
to constitute a prize court by authority from
the rebel Government, will have to be argued
before and decided by Sir
the Admiralty Court.
[The pirate Tuscaloosa was forinerly the
bark Conrad of Philadelphia.]
Loss of the Bohemian—Statement of One
of the PaseertgerS.
From a passenger, who came up onboatNo.
5, I learn that he was standing on deck at the
time the accident occurred. They had passed
the buoy, and the passengers wee just re
marking that it was a pilot boat coming oat,
when the ship struck. The boats were got
out safely, with the exception of No.j, which
was swamped. No. 5 took aboard . all she
could hold, including several who hadjumped
into the water. Being unable to find a land
ing place, she was lowed up the harbor. She
contained mostly cabin passengers, and some
steerage passengers, whose names I did not
learn, with the exception of a Mr. Brown.
XXXVIlith Congress—First Session.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23, 1863
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
The House resumed the consideration of
the bill to establish a Bureau for Freedmen's
Affairs.
Mr. Kelley . (Pa.) advocated the bill and
pressed its immediate passage to meet the
exigencies which have arisen under the pre
sent war.
PINE APPLE CHEESE—Norton s ce!e
bratea, at, [ado] WE DOCK. Js, kea
etATSUPS AND SAUCES, of the moat
sn
v parlor and choice brands, Just received and for sale
by ' [r e m] ON. DOCK, Jx, & co.
DlatilAlt MUSTARD, the best' imported,
just reeeived and for sale by
febl SPDLDOOK;IR., tc Ca
RANGES! O.IIANGES!--A large lot of
O
superior Oranges, and Melly Havana, for sale in any
quantitYat 1an 29 1 BOER Kosititga.
SMOKED SALMON. -FINE kNE SMOKED
SALMON, jui3t received at,
feb3
dam), Feb. 22
BoErrox, Feb. 23
POETI.MO, Feb. 23
W. DOCIC, J&, & 00