Rensselaer Republican, Volume 16, Number 50, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 21 August 1884 — HOW THIEVES MAKE USE OF NEWS. [ARTICLE]

HOW THIEVES MAKE USE OF NEWS.

Why Police Try Hani to Ke»p to.Thein■elve. the Facte About Home Crimes. “Why is it," an old detective asked, “that the police appear to be disappointed when, as is nrOst frequently the ease, they can not keep from the public the news that a robl»ery has been committed ? The thieves are well aware that they have stolen the goods, and the publication of the robbery can’t give them any informs* tion.” “It hufrries the goods to the meltingpot whefi gold and silver are stolen, a d often causes the thieves to destroy other kinds of plunder.’’ “How does that happen ?” “Just suppose a lot of jewelry was stolen, and it came out in the papers that some of the watches had the. jeweler's private mark on the inside case, and that the pawnbroker had been notified to look out for them. Just about fifteen minutes after the crook got ight of the paper he would calmly remove the works from the” watch case and would make a bee line for the most conven. ent 'fence.’ Not more than half an hour after the ‘fence’ man got hold of the cases they would be melted up.” ’’Would they not have done that anyway ? ’ ‘ltis doubtful. Crooks look upon robbery as a business, just as all honest men look on ordinary trades. The crook wants to make as big a profit out of his robber io- as lie can. A watch he can readily dispose of for $75 or so, while lie can’t get more that $25 ■jfrire'breaks it up. If he thinks that there are no identifying marks on the watches, or such marks escape him, lie will run the risk of pawning them. The pawn shops are the friends of the “How is that?” ‘The police know the pawn shops to which the thieves are likely to go, and after a large robbery the pawn shops are watched. When a man goes there to pawiTa~ stolen article, be is nabbed by the detective at the door.’’ “Are there other reasons why the police try so hard, though so vainly, to keep robberies quiet?” “Lots of them. The chief and leading one is that a large robbery always reflects upon the - police. Whether there is or not any reason to blame the police, it is generally said that there is. Now, you know as well as I do that nobody likes to be blamed if he can help it. If the police can manage to keep it quiet until they arrest the thieves, they come in for praise, and nd one says a word against them lor the robbery. There s another reason. If the crook thinks that he has left no tracks by which he can be traced, he does not take as much care of his actions as he would if he thought that it was known that he had committed a robbery.”— Xeic York Sun.

A Sensible Advocate. The most eloquent advocate is not the most successful jury lawyer. The late Jeremiah Mason, of Boston, was not an orator, yet few lawyers could cope with him in a struggle before the twelve men of the jury-box. He never declaimed; his mind was too logical for that, and he cared little for rhetoric. But lie talked to the jury as if he and they were engaged in friendly Srbitra tion, in which both were anxious to get the facts of the case. James Scarlett whs the inferior of Henry Brougham in -the art of oratory. Yet he-won five verdicts to Brougham’s one. A cbuntryman, yho had served as a juryman in several cases of which the. two great lawyers were opposing counsel, on being asked what Jre thought of them, sad: •‘lhat'Lbrd BroughamJ>e a wonlerfnl mau. He can talk, he can; but I don’t think nowt of Uawyer Scarlett,” “Indeed!” rejoined the questioner. “You surprise me. Why, you have been giving him all the verdicts.” —’’Oh, there's nowt in that,” replied the simple-minded countryman. “He be lucky, you see; he be always on the rigjit side!” Scarlett won such compliments and verdicts, too, which were better than praise, by his habit of conversing with the jury. . Instead of addressing them collectively, as most lawyers do, he would select one or two, usually one, and reason with h m on the subject, until the man was apparently convinced. The one whom Re selected was not always the foreman, but the juror who seemed the most intelligent, and therefore the most likely to have influence with his colleagues. Sometimes he would change his tactics, and select the juryman who seemed the most stupid. Once, when he had made an unusually long address to the jury, another lawyer, who had been impatiently waiting to get the ear of the Court, joked him on his prolix speech. “Did you see that fellow in the fustian jacket?” asked Scarlett. “Well, I saw that his head could hold but one idea at a time, and I was determificd to get my idea into it, and I did.” The following anecdotes illustrate the good sense with which this great advocate conducted his casea: In a breach of promise case, Scarlett was counsel for the defendant, who was supposed to have beqn cajoled into the engagement by tttb plaintiff’s mother. The mother was a witness, and completely baffled Scarlett in his cross-ex-amination of her. To an ordinary advocate this failure woqld have been fatal to his client. But Scarlett turned it into a success. “You saw, gentlemen of the jury,” he said, “that I was but a child in her hands. What must my client have been In, an action for nuisance, the plaintiff’s chief witness was a -lady. * She lived near the alleged nuisance and swore strongly in favor of the plaintiff. Scarlett began his cross-examination by inquiring about her domestic relations. her children and their illness. So sympathetically did he put his questions that the lady became confidential and freely talked about her family affairs. The Judge, thinking' .these matters irrelevant, interfered; but Scarlett Itegged to be allowed to proceed. On the conclusion of the cross-examination, he said: 1 —, “Sly lor J. I call no witness. This 'lady has ?worn that she has brought up

numerous and healthy children in the vicinity of the alleged nuisance.” The jury, amused as well as convinced, gave a verdict for Scarlett’s client.