In investigating the case, the Agent learned from the prosecutors, that they intended to get paid by keeping him in prison till after his furlough expired, and then getting the major to arrest him, as a deserter, with a promise that he would see them paid out of money, which the prisoner would eventually have to pay, after being put in irons and confined, for three months, in the barracks—which is said to be the customary punishment in such cases.
3. Another case was that of a United States Army captain, who was imprisoned on the charge of enticing soldiers out of a regiment in one State into a regiment of another State. It appears that, from patriotic motives, he had resigned the command of his company in Virginia and went to New York to raise a regiment of which he was to be major. While he was in Philadelphia the orderly-sergeant of his former company sent him a letter, inquiring how he progressed in forming his new regiment, and also informing him that, after pay-day, many of his old command would quit their company.
This portion of the letter came to the knowledge of one of our city aldermen, who construed it, as enticing soldiers from one company into another, and thereupon unjustly committed the captain to prison.
On the Agent stating the truth of the case to the alderman, and asking the prisoner’s immediate release, as his services were needed in our country’s defence; the magistrate refused to discharge him, unless he or his friends would pay the costs, and thus submit to the illegal extortion of money, as also to the imputation of having violated the laws. Whereupon the Agent, after consulting the United States Court officers, applied to the Court of Quarter Sessions for a writ of habeas corpus, had the case examined, and the prisoner was discharged by the authority of Judge Thompson.
4. Another extraordinary case was that of a woman charged with kidnapping and robbery. The alleged kidnapping—as was proved in Court—consisted in her taking possession of her own son, of 16 years old, a runaway, found by her in Schuylkill County, and the robbery in the taking of his clothes, which she had a right to take, as was shown by her acquittal in Court, at her hearing upon a writ of habeas corpus, procured by the Agent; when the fact of his being her son was established, not only by herself, his mother, but by his brother, of 19 years old, and by a respectable citizen and others, who had known him from infancy.
5. Another case, presenting, perhaps, still more striking features, was that of a woman committed, on a bail-piece issued by one of our city aldermen, November 20th, and discharged November 21st, by bail being entered for her appearance at Court. The original charge against her was for assault and battery on a neighbor woman.
According to the prisoner’s account, she got into difficulty with this neighbor about some children belonging to another party. They struck each other, and then the prisoner was sued by the other woman before an alderman, who granted a warrant gratis, as at the time she had no money. The prisoner was required to give bail, or go to prison. She then arranged with the alderman’s constable (at his suggestion) to pay him $2 for being her bail, on her receiving money, which she expected daily from her husband and son, who were in the United States Army. She also agreed to pay the alderman $1.80. On her receiving, soon after, a remittance from her son, she promptly paid the amount agreed upon.
She was then told, by the alderman and constable, that she must now enter freehold bail for her appearance at Court. She replied, that she thought that unnecessary, as she and her prosecutrix had settled their quarrel, and were now as friendly and intimate as sisters, visiting each other in their respective premises almost every hour in the day. But, notwithstanding all this, and although, being a simple case of assault and battery, it was fully within the magistrate’s power to settle it, he would not do it, but insisted on having freehold security.
She then consulted a distinguished lawyer on the case, who addressed a note to the alderman, requesting him to dismiss it. He would not comply with the request, but persisted in exacting freehold bail.
The alderman’s constable then proposed getting his brother-in-law for her bail, on condition that she would pay him $5 for the service. Becoming frightened, as she had three small children, with no one but herself to care for them, her husband and son being in the army, she assented to his terms and paid him the money—which (be it noted) was in addition to the $3.80 previously paid to the alderman and constable.