from the painful posture in which I was, and succeeded; immediately afterwards I heard a sort of a scuffle, and looking round, saw McKenzie, with his arm raised, reaching out as if to seize some body Mr. Crump. I object to any statement as to Clare and Dowel. Mr. Young. Mr. Watt, did you see the prisoner? Mr. Watt. I believe I did see the prisoner that night, but I can't locate him. was George Sublett. Was at the African church that night. At the time of the pressure about three feet from Mr. McKenzie; saw no necessity for a pressure; my arm was in a sling from a hurt, and I avoided the crowd; as I was advancing I met a man pressing towards me elbowing his way, when there was no need for it; I stood aside and made way for him. The man was not tall, not as tall as I am, but broad and stout; I was struck with his appearance, and when afterwards I saw Allison in the Mayor's Court, believed it was the same man. Cross-examined. Am sometimes at the Columbian, but not at meal times; never saw the prisoner there; the man had not gotten out of the church before I heard Mr. McKenzie cry out he was robbed; did not see the man's face, or the color of his hair; think he had a hat on; never recognized him except by his broad shoulders; was with a lady, and when the confusion commenced she was very much alarmed and begged me to leave with her; got up on a bench and stayed about five minutes. There was much confusion, and propositions to search were made; did not see any little boys in the aisle, nor did I see Dowel or Clare; think I first mentioned the matter to my brother that night or next morning. Mr. Young. I think we have now in the case, evidence tending to prove a connection of the prisoner with this affair at the church. The COURT. You can go on, sir. McKenzie (recalled). I turned and Clare was retreating and watching me, in this way—(here the position was shown) - I reached out after him; I was so eager that my hand fell down by his head, crushing his hat, and I seized his collar; I said, "You have got my pocketbook;" he said, "I haven't;" I said, "You took it;" after a moment said, "Search me." he Mr. Crump. These statements are not evidence; it is not pretended that Allison was then present, and they cannot be given in evidence on the ground of conspiracy, because even if any conspiracy existed, its object had been accomplished the moment of the theft and the conspiracy had ceased; the statements of one conspirator, made after the conspiracy is ended, are not evidence against another conspirator. The COURT said Mr. McKenzie might state any facts connected with the loss and search, but not declarations of Clare or Dowel. McKenzie. I searched him but did not find my pocketbook, and did not expect to find it; I searched both Dowel and Clare at the church and did not find any of my property upon either of them. I had on a pair of home-made pantaloons which were very spareing in every thing, and had very shallow pockets. George Watt, Jr., (recalled). Seeing him catch Clare, I caught hold of the other man that I had seen pressing upon Mr. McKenzie. As soon as possible I went to the cage and got Captain Jenkins and the police to arrest them. When Allison was brought back here to the jail, I went and asked the jailor to let me see him, and the moment I saw him 1 recognized him as a man I had seen at the church; I have a peculiar faculty for remembering faces. was ing on McKenzie; no one crowding on them; the nearest persons I saw to them were some boys. Clare had on a cloak and was in a leaning position when I saw him. P. P. Winston. Am sheriff. This morning when I was walking round by him, Allison asked me what I thought he had better do; he said he thought they would convict him and let the others off; he said he received the money from the man whom Mr. McKenzie seized at the church; he asked me if I thought he had better plead guilty; I told him I thought as he had stood so far, he had best plead not guilty; he said he had been advised not to plead by his counsel. Mr. Crump stated that he considered his office and his duty as ended; as the prisoner had thought proper to take his case into his own hands, he considered himself no longer bound to act as his counsel and should leave him to the jury. Mr. Young submitted the case without argument. The Prisoner addressed the jury, saying he was not concerned in the matter; that he was not at the church; that the money was handed to him by a man named Humphreys, and that he was innocent. The Jury retired, and in a short time returned with a verdict of Guilty. April 22. Their Dowel and Clare were tried on the same indictment. trial was to a great extent, a repetition of the evidence above given. They were convicted. April 25. The JUDGE pronounced sentence on the three prisoners. The circumstances of Allison's case, he said had furnished one more proof how often the very fruits of crime are turned to gall and wormwood upon the lips of the criminal. Allison had escaped with the money, while his accomplices were instantly arrested; to other's eyes and to his own, he perhaps seemed the most fortunate, yet the result had been that his prey was the means of his conviction, and so his punishment would be more severe than that of his comrades in crime. The sentence of the Court was that Dowel and Clare should be confined in the penitentiary for the term of four years, and Allison for the term of five years. 1 THE TRIAL OF THOMAS LAFON, JR., FOR THE KILLING OF JOSEPH HEBRING, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, 1869. THE NARRATIVE. There had been a heavy fall of snow in the City of Newark, New Jersey, and on each side of a fashionable residence street, just after breakfast, men and boys were shoveling the snow from the sidewalks. A prominent house was that of Dr. Lafon, a popular physician, and his young son, Joe, a boy of fifteen, was at work at his front, varying his labors with throwing snowballs at the other boys across the street, who were similarly engaged. A butcher boy drove by in his master's wagon and in sport Joe threw some snow at him. The butcher boy resented this and called out to Joe that if he did that again he would punch his head. Joe dared him. The boy jumped down and in a moment the two youngsters were both down on the sidewalk pummelling each other in an earnest struggle, the butcher boy on top and getting the best of it, as he was bigger and stronger than his antagonist. Standing at the window of his father's house, Tommy Lafon, an older brother, saw the fight and ran out of the house, picked up the shovel from the sidewalk, and struck the butcher boy several times. One blow fell on his head. There was a question whether he used the blade or the handle of the shovel, and whether the blow was not aimed at the back and only fell on the head because of an unexpected movement of the boy. The result, however, was the death of the boy. It was not charged that there was any intention to kill and the indictment was for manslaughter and not murder. The Court ruled that defense of one's brother was not a justification, and that the defendant might be found guilty. An unfortunate incident was made much of at the trial and doubtless influenced the verdict. When the bystanders picked up the senseless butcher boy and attempted to take him into the doctor's home, they were met at the front door by Mrs. Lafon, who refused to let him be brought in and told them to take him to the basement. This caused the case to take on the aspect of an issue between classes-the rich against the poor: and the workingmen of the city demanded the punishment of the rich man's son. Two of the most eminent lawyers of this state-Joseph P. Bradley, afterwards an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Cortlandt Parker-were retained to defend him. And when the trial came on, the court house was packed, the front rows of seats being occupied by scores of ladies of the highest circles in society, while the rear was crowded to suffocation by the representatives of the working classes. The jury brought in a verdict of manslaughter, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for a year. All the evidence was to the effect that Tommy Lafon was a thoroughly goodnatured young man, and that his action in striking the victim was simply an impulse of the moment. He was pardoned after a few months' imprisonment, and lived and died an honored citizen.1 137 New Jersey L. J. 220, 286. In the summing up of counsel at the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Bradley fairly surpassed himself for his trenchant review of the testimony and his masterly eloquence. Toward the close of his address, however, he appeared to be overcome with emotion, and a thrill of excitement ran through all the front rows of spectators at his stammering words, as he appealed to the jury not to inflict upon this young defendant their con- He could go no further, but dropped helplessly into his chair, and dropped his face upon his arms outspread upon the table. It was an exciting scene. Nobody appreciated it better than his associate counsel, Mr. Parker, but Mr. Parker attributed the thrilling emotion to a different cause from that of the other spectators, and he watched Mr. Bradley with a mixture of whimsicality and curiosity. His expectations were finally fulfilled, as Bradley raised his head and muttered, half to himself and half to Parker: "Condemnation-that's the word I wanted!"-Rem iniscences of William Nelson. |