Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/250

236 FEDEBAIi BEPOETEB. �printed band-billsof exlracts from the United States Eerised Statutes on the subject of admiralty offences, containing, among others, the section on which the indictment in this case is based. He was cross-examined at great length, to sbow that he had sought by extor- tion of threats and promises of exemption from prosecution, to obtain confessions and money for goods from other parties implicated. He substantially claimed he had told all parties the same as he had this defendant. Other testimony was introduced for the purpose of cor- roborating this confession and the witnesses who testified to it. The defendant himself testified that he made no such confessions, but told Bennett he got the goods out of the river. He said that on the night of the wreck, being informed of it, he went to the river, near which helived, andwith one Darnell and others went out in a skiff and cap- tured some hogsheads of meat, which they divided between them ; that subsequently he got some millinery goods, spices, and pepper, of no considerable value; that next day he took from the river the articles of furniture mentioned in the indictment, and others, which Darnell took for his share and that he carried them home. The bureau being without drawers and all apart from soaking, and the lounge torn and dilapidated, and being of no value to him, he carried them back and threw them into the river. He did this because they were, he thought, worthless. A few days after the goods were captured from the river, he reported to the officers in charge of the boat, and one of them came to his house and they divided the meat, the defendant, by agreement, retaining his share for saving it. The officer gave him the millinery and spices, but nothing was said about the furniture. Bennett, however, afterwards made him pay $94 for the property, and promised him that should be the last of it. He paid for the goods to Bennett because he was afraid of him, and afraid he would kill him. Being asked if he intended to steal this property or to destroy it, the defendant — the objection to the testimony being overruled — said ho did not ; that he did not know any one had any interest in it or right to it, and he did not intend to do wrong, and that as soon as he found the goods were claimed he reported them. There was conflict of proof as to the fact of his reporting this furniture. The government endeavored to show that he concealed it, and some meat not reported by him, but he insisted that while he did not at first report the furni- ture, the ofEcer could have seen it at his house when he got the meat, and he subsequently did report the furniture, and what he had done with it. He stated, on the subject of the confessions, that he told Ben- nett what he did, and paid him for the goods on his promise that ��� �