In the Circuit Court of the United States of America, holden in and for the Western District of Pennsylvania, at May sessions, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-one. Western District of Pennsylvania, to-wit:
The grand inquest of the United States of America, inquiring for the Western District of Pennsylvania, upon their oaths and affirmations respectively do present and say: That John F. Braddee, late of said Western District of Pennsylvania, a practitioner of medicine, did on the twenty-fifth day of January, in the year eighteen hundred and forty, at Uniontown, in the said Western District of Pennsylvania, procure, advise and assist Peter Mills Strayer to steal, take and carry away the mail of the United States of America, then in progress of transmission from the postoffice in Washington City, in the District of Columbia, to the postoffice at Wheeling, in the Western District of Virginia, contrary to the form of the act of Congress of the United States, in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government and dignity of the United States.
C. DARRAGH,
U. S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
True bill—James Riddle, Foreman.
May 24th, 1841.—The Grand Jury came into court and presented a bill of indictment against Wm. Purnell for stealing a letter from the mail and other offenses. Same day John F. Braddee by his bail, Hugh Graham, is surrendered into Court and Hugh Graham discharged from his recognizance. Same day, on the motion of Mr. Austin, and affidavit of John M. Austin, filed, habeas corpus ad satisfaciendum, issued to the jailor and Sheriff of Fayette county for the body of William Collins. United States vs. John F. Braddee, No. 3 of May Term, 1841. Stealing from the United States mails. And now, to-wit: May 25th, 1841, a jury being called came, to-wit: George Fortune, William Plummer, Samuel Cooper, William Raymond, Edward A. Reynolds, Arnold Eichbaum, James Stewart, John Clemens, Joseph Alexander, Thomas F. Mitchell, Thomas S. Cunningham and Samuel A. Roberts, twelve good and lawful men, duly sworn, summoned and balloted for, and sworn and affirmed, do say on their oaths and affirmations that the defendant is guilty on the first, second and fourth counts in the indictment, and not guilty on the third count. Verdict given on the 4th day of June, 1841. The jury was polled at the instance of defendant’s counsel.
EXCEPTIONS.
The Court referred to the trial of Robinson, which had taken place at the present term, and in which some of the jurors now empanneled had rendered a verdict of guilty. It was not pretended that this trial had the remotest connection with the mail robbery at Uniontown, or that the case of Robinson involved any principle of evidence, or consideration as to the credibility of witnesses, analogous to the case under consideration; yet the Court asked the jury to reflect how it would look, out of doors, after the conviction of a poor friendless boy like Robinson, to acquit such a prisoner as was then on trial; that it might countenance the reproach which had been cast upon the law of permitting big fish to escape while little ones were caught, and that the Court would be deeply mortified at such an appearance. These remarks, which could afford no possible grounds for salutary reflection, were calculated to make the jury forget their oaths; to lead them away from a conscientious and fearless examination of the testimony to calculations upon the probable opinions of others, founded not upon oath or upon a full hearing of the testimony. This, too, in a case where it had been made to appear that the most infamous attempts were resorted to for the purpose of inflaming the public mind by falsehoods through the press. The jury to reflect that if they took a course unpopular at the moment, the whole odium must rest upon them, and that their characters, motives and conduct would be placed in striking contrast with the more popular tone of the Court.
2. That the Court whilst forbearing altogether to notice, or noticing very slightly, the considerations which took all weight from the testimony of Corman and Strayer (witnesses for the prosecution), told the jury it would be a farce to pay any attention to the testimony of Collins and Owens, witnesses for the accused, although the latter stood infinitely fairer before the jury, and had no such powerful inducements as Corman and Strayer to give false testimony.
3. The offense, if any, established against the prisoner, was that of taking the mail with the consent of the person having charge thereof. Yet the Court declined to give the prisoner the benefit of this discrimination.
4. The charge of the Court that the testimony of Turk, as to the non-arrival of the mail at New York, derived from the register, was sufficient, without the production of the register or any copy thereof, or extract therefrom.