
    The People vs. John Sheahan.
    On a charge ive larceny, the Court will leave it to the jury .under all the case,to decide defendant is guilty or not.
    
      Petit Larceny.
    
    John Sheahan was indicted for a petit larceny of 6 pur Caps, the property of Augustus F. Dettreich.
    The facts of the case appeared as follows : it was prove¿ that the prisoner kept a store, or rather a cellar, at the r r corner of Ferry and Pearl Streets, for the sale oí oranges, that in consequence of information obtained by the police, Mr. Conklin and Mr. Homan was authorized to search the premises of the prisoner. They went there for pUrp0se, and upon examining a trunk in the cellar, found among other articles, three of the hats claimed and identified by Mr. Dettreich as his property.
    Upon their going into the cellar, the prisoner seemed unwilling they should search his premises, but afterwards consented, and a search was made. They found the three hats in a trunk, and upon questioning the prisoner where he got them, he answered that they were purchased by him at auction ; these articles, with a variety of others, were brought to the police office by Messrs. Homan and Conklin.
    
      Sheahan was also brought to the police office, examined and committed for trial. •
    These facts were made out by witnesses examined on the part of the people, and Maxwell, District Attorney, rested the prosecution. 1 ••
    
      Sampson and D. Graham, counsel for the prisoner,
    examined a number of witnesses, to prove that the defendant had sustained a good character ; that a certain Gtuigley, whom they alleged had been subpoenaed, and who had clandestinely left the city in consequence of this prosecution, was the person who stole the articles, and rested their c^efence upon several grounds ; to wit, the dangerous tendency of constructive felony, when stretched to the extent this case would seem to imply ; that the circumstances of this case were suspicious; that they had shown the court that the prisoner had heretofore sustained a most excellent character ; that no man in the community would be safe if a conviction could take place on circumstances so doubtful and suspicious. They contended the character of the prisoner ought to preponderate in a doubtful case like the present.
    
      Maxwell, District Attorney,
    
    contended that he thought the case such a one as demanded the serious attention of the Court: that it was true the evidence against the prisoner was of that species denominated presumptive evidence, but that the circumstances against him were so numerous, and of such a nature, as to leave little doubt on his mind, of the guilt of the prisoner. That the articles were stole on the 25th of January, and part of them were found by the police officers in the dark cellar, the premises of the prisoner, secured in a trunk: that after they were found, and upon inquiry where he obtained them, he answered he had purchased them at auction; but that now the defence set up by him was, that they left at his house by a Mr. Quigley ; that it was true the counsel for the prisoner had called a number of resPect£dde witnesses, who gave him a good character, but was-- very common to see on the trial of a prisoner ar- . , „ . r, . . tor the most notorious crimes, a number of witnesses testify to his good character, even where the evidence was of the most conclusive nature, and his character the most infamous.
   By the Court..

“The prisoner, John Sheahan, is in- “ dieted for stealing six fur caps, the property of Augus- tus F. Dettreich. The evidence against the prisoners “ that kind in law denominated circumstantial or presump“live evidence. This kind of evidence is peculiarly prop- “ er for the consideration of a jury. There are some cir- cumstances against the prisoner. '

1. “ He was found in possession of the stolen articles.

2. “ He refused to give any account how they came into “ his possession.

3. “ They were found in a dark cellar, secured in a “ trunk.

4. “ He refused, at first, to afford the officers any facili- “ ties to search the premises, but afterwards consented.

“ There are other circumstances in his favor.

1. The chest in which the articles were was not locked.

2. “ The stolen property was found on the top of the “ trunk.

3. “ There were six hats stolen, and but three found.

4. “ It appears the articles were stolen in the day time, “the prisoner was’lame, a circumstance that would prob- “ ably have attracted the attention of the prosecutor to his “ person, if he had been in the store.

5. “ A number of respectable witnesses have testified “ that the prisoner heretofore sustained a good character.”

And the Court left it to the jury to say, from all the circumstances of the case, whether the prisoner was guilty or not guilty.

The prisoner was acquitted.  