Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/254

240 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �they so belong, and an intent to appropriate, convert, or destroy them by sorae other use than that of restoring them to the vessel or the owners, entertained either at the time of the taking or subsequently formed and carried out by such unlawful use.' �" If, therefore, you find from the proof that the defendant took the goods mentioned from the City of Vieksburgh, either from off the wreck itself, or while afloat or cast away upon the shore, with an intent to appropriate or destroy them, and that he did so appropriate or destroy them, he is guilty under this statute, and you cannot avoid saying so. If, however, you believe that he took the goods with an intent to preserve them and restore them to the owner, either without salvage for saving them or with it, he is not guilty. If Ms intention was to claim salvage, he might lawf ully keep the goods until that claim was adjusted by agreement or decree of court, but no other intent than this could be lawful under this statute." �The court gave the following instruction asked hy the govemment: �"The district attorney, on behalf of the United States, asks the court to instruct the jury that, under the third oount of the indictinent lierein, if they believe from the testimony that the defendant threw into the Mississippi river the goods named in this count, and that they belonged to the steam-boat City of Vieksburgh, he, is guilty of a destruction of such goods." �And also the following asked by the defendant : �"If the jury believe that the defendant rescued the property in question from the river, and afterwards, believing or supposing that said property was not worth preservation, threw it again into the river for the sole reason that he thought it not worth preservation, and not for the purpose of depriving the owners of it, then you will not be authorized to convict him of this offeuce because of throwing them into the river." �" If the proof shows that the defendant took goods belonging to the steamer Vieksburgh which had floated from the wreck, the court charges the jury that such taking was prima fade lawful; that every person has a legal right to save goods which belong to a wreck, and are derelict ; and, when he does take goods under such circumstances, no presumption of guilt can arise from such taking per se; on the contrary, without more, the fair presumption is that the taking was with a proper motive." �The court read to the jury a charge asked by the defendant on the subject of confessions as the law on that subject, taken in connection with what the court said to them on the same subject. The defend- ant's request is as follows : �"A confession of the defendant has been detailed by the witness Bennett,. in which he admits going upon said steamer after her wreck, and taking the articles mentioned in the indiettuent from her texas. The court cliarges you with reference to verbal confessions — and the one detailed by Bennett is of this character — that they are regarded with suspicion by the law: First, be- cause of the liability the person repeating them is under to mistake the party confessing as to what he actually did say, or to repeat accurately what he ��� �