Smuggling.
--That the way of the transgressor is hard is evident to all from the trouble which two blockaders, both intelligent young men, have had to undergo within a few days past.
Yesterday
Peter H. Morgan, a blockade runner, was before the
Mayor on the cath of
Josiah K. Farr, also a blockader, charged with taking and appropriating to his own use a carpet sack filled with blockade goods, which sack had been entrusted to
Farr by
Camille Cotter, also a blockader.
From the evidence elicited it appears that
Cotter, while in
Maryland, placed in the care of
Farr a carpet sack of goods to be brought South,
Farr being a successful "runner" and a trust worthy man.
Farr, it seems, had chartered a vessel, and allowed
Morgan to ship goods on it, which vessel was seized by Federal agents in
Washington.
Farr then made up blockade packages and deposited them in
Maryland for safe keeping,
Morgan knowing where they were and all about them.
The next thing heard of the sack and goods in question they had been brought to
Richmond, entered in an auction house, and ordered to be sold to the credit of
James Farr, the prisoner drawing the money for the goods when sold, but professing his readiness to pay it over to
Farr at any moment.
Farr, it seems, gave
Morgan no authority to get his goods and bring them over.
Morgan gave as a reason for doing so that he supposed
Farr had been captured by the
Yankees; that finding the sack and a letter bag in the hands of another party he took possession of them, and, as a friendly act, made sale of the goods, in order that
Farr might realize their value.
Gen. Humphrey Marshall and
A. J. Crane,
Esq., appeared for the accused.
After exhibiting the return of sales, which were made out in the name of
James Farr, and proving the good character of their client, they took the ground that no offence had been committed, as no concealment had been made of the goods, they having been sold for
Mr. Farr, to whom the proceeds of sale would be paid at any moment.
After denying the larceny, they contended that no identification of the goods had taken place, and that even if a larceny had been perpetrated, it had been completed in the
United States, and could not follow into the
Confederacy, inasmuch as the two powers were at war.
The
Mayor concurred in the opinion that the
Court could not take jurisdiction of a felony committed in a foreign country, but stated that the evidence in this case showed no felonious intent on the part of the prisoner, and that he therefore felt bound to order his discharge.
