Rensselaer Union, Volume 8, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 November 1875 — A Very Remarkable Case. [ARTICLE]

A Very Remarkable Case.

A remarkable case occurred last week in one of our public schools, presenting a phase of character on the part of two young scholars which puzzles the astute and observing teachers. The sacque of a little eirl was one day, it was supposed, taken from the cloak-room. The Principal went into the lower department and inquired if any of tlie scholars had seen it. Several hands went up; on inquiry, however, it was found that none of the scholars could trace it beyond the cloak-room; but one little fellow six years of age, who had raised his hand at first, said he knew whereitrwas and then, commencing to cry, said he had never seen it and knew nothing about it. Going into the apartment above the Principal made the same inquiry. No one had seen the sacque, but a brother of the little six-year-old seemed to feel uneasy at the question, and evinced some emotion. He was eight years old. The teacher, seeing what The coneeived to be evidence of knowledge in regard to the sacque on the part of the two little brothers, called out the elder one and asked him where the sacque was. At first he denied any knowledge in regard to it, but, the Principal questioning him mildly and kindly, the little fellow finally said that he took the sacque, but he declined to tell where it was. Tlie Principal visited the boys parents, who are worthy and respected people, and in the presence of the boys stated what had occurred. The parents at once directed the boys to tell frankly and fully all they knew about the sacque. The oldest said* that on leaving school he took thesaeque, put it under his overcoat and started for his home; that on the- way another boy snatched it from him and ran off with it. His little brother said he saw the boy snatch away the sacque. Neither could identify this boy. When it was suggested that tlie eld-

er boy’s overcoat was so small that lie could not get a sacque under*.it, he said: “1 guess a girl rolled it up' into a very small trad and put it under there.” On inquiry it became evident that no such snatching incident had occurred. The case had now become interesting, and a policeman was sent to interview the eight-year-old boy, who had all the time been quite calm and self-possessed, though contradictory in ins Stories. The policeman interviewed the boy at the schoolhouse. The boy told him that he took the sacque, Slid had hidden it in a vacant lot between two -stumps, where he covered it with dry leaves. The policeman requested the boy to go with him to the place ot concealment, and he readily consented. He. led tim. policeman, not toward a vacant lot, hut into & street of I dwelling-houses. The policeman asked the boy if this, was the right direction to the stumps, and hq said it was. But ffie surroundings did hot appear right, and the policeman again inquired: “ You are not deceiving me, are you? You are not leading me to your* home?”—the policeman hot knowing where he lived. The boy coolly replied: “ Oh, no! this is the right way; I’ll show you the stumpsand in a moment more the little tel low dodged into his own house, leaiing the policeman out in the cold. Finally the boy’s mother permitted the policeman to take him over to a fire-engine house to see if he could get from him the true story of this affair. The boy Went along without fear or emotion. He finally took the policeman into a lot, showed him

‘.wo stumps near together and said: “There is tlie place where I hid thesaeque.” But there was no evidence that any sacque had been hidden there; it did not appear at all like a place cf concealment, and, the boy’s story being contradictory, the policeman took him to the engine-house and shut him into a room, asking him how he liked tliat. The boy mildly replied: “I rather like this.” Leaving him there for a time it was found on opening the door that he had lain himself down and gone to sleep! The policeman then took him to the station-house, put him in a dark cell and, partly closing tlie door, told him that he must tell truly where the sacque was or he would shut him in. The, boy then utterly refused to tqll him anything more. The policeman then asked him: “ How do you like,this place?” The boy replied: “I like it well enough,” and did not appear to be at all disturbed at the prospect of a gloomy confinement. The policeman shut the door and then inquired: “How do you like it now ?” The boy replied: .“I likg- this pretty well; it is a pretty good place.” The policeman was astounded to find utter indifference and composure on the part of a boy of eight years when confined in a dark cell that had so often subdued hardened men. He said to the boy: “If you hear any rats in the cell you must call to me loudly, and I will come and drive them oft'.” “If 1 hear any rats,” quietly replied the boy, “lwill let you know;” and there the little fellow remained through the afternoon without a whimper or complaint. At the approach of evening he was taken out, and appeared no more alarmed or disturbed than if he had been in the parlor of his home. He was sent to his parents; and policeman, teacher and parents were puzzled over this strange case. But now comes the most singular part of this remarkable story. The next day the sacque was found, and the circumstances attending it were such as to render it impossible for the little boy accused or his brother to have anything to do with it, or even to have seen it. And this settled fact throws a still greater mystery around the stories of the two little brothers, and especially the action ot the oldest one. He was not treated harshly by the Principal, who mildly and kindly attempted to impress upon him the duly of telling the truth in regard to the sacque. The only harsh treatment he received was while he was shut up, and this seemed to make no impression upon him. He is a remarkable boy, evidently, and an ordinarily good and faithful boy. But what singular phase of character is it that induced him to say so readily that he took the sacque when he had never seen it; and to give some particulais as to what he did with it, all of which were purely imaginary ? And the conduct and evidence of his little six-year-old brother, too, who said lie saw a boy snatch a sacque away, is also inexplicable. A Vermont man, who was some years since accused of murdering one of his neighbors, confessed the crime, and gave all the particular of it. He was sentenced to be hanged; but his life was saved by the sudden reappearance of the individual supposed to have been murdered—there having been no murder or violence at all. This case is a matter of judicial record and a puzzle to judges and lawyers. That "confession” was by a manoi mature years, of ecftication and of good character. Now comes a “confession,” also of an offense never committed, by a boy of tender years; and it is corroborated by a little brother, who never saw anything of tlie kind which he says he saw. The story, in which is involved a peculiar phase of human character, or the working of tlie mind under sefious accusations, is something for teachers, as well as lawyers and judges, to reflect upon and define, if they can. —Hartford {Conn.) Times, Nov. 1.