Chapter 35
Section 35 of American State Trials, Volume 1. This is a LibroX recording. All LibroX recordings are in the public domain. For more information to volunteer, please visit LibroX.org. American State Trials, Volume 1, by John D. Lawson.
The Trial of Francis Wittenberg, for Procurement, New York City, 1818. The Narrative. Wittenberg was the keeper of an intelligence office for servants in New York City, and to him one day in February, Mary Jones, a young female who had just arrived in New York from the country, applied for a situation.
He sent her to several people whom it appeared did not want servants, and finally to a Mrs. Davis, the keeper of a house of ill fame. She escaped from the house and after wandering in the streets, was taken up by the police to whom she told her story. At the trial there was evidence that Mary Jones was a wanton, but this was denied and
was probably untrue, as one of the defendant's witnesses, who had sworn to this, was ordered into custody after he had finished his testimony. Wittenberg was convicted, the court holding that it was no difference what the character of Mary Jones was, as the keeper of an intelligence office had no right to supply either good or bad women to a house of ill fame.
The Trial. In the Court of General Assertions for the City and County of New York, City Hall, New York City, March 1818. Jacob Radcliffe, Mayor. Richard Riker, Recorder.
A. L. Underhill, Alderman. James Warner, Special Justice. March 2nd. During the last term, Francis Wittenberg was indicted, the indictment containing two counts, for a misdemeanor of common law, for that he is now, and for a long time has been, the
keeper of a public intelligence office in the City of New York, where servants, male as well as female, for a certain compensation by them paid, are furnished with places and persons in want of servants, for a certain compensation by them paid, are furnished with servants that the defendant, on the 5th of February 1818, at etc. wickily intending and devising by means and under colour of his business and calling, to aid, abet and assist
divers lewd and debauched persons, to the jurors unknown, in the seduction and ruin of young female girls, and to incite to prostitution and to pounce to the lustful passions of divers, debauched and profligate men, to the jurors unknown, did, on application to him, the defendant, as the keeper of a public intelligence office by Mary Jones, for a place in a decent family, recommend her, the said Mary Jones, to one Davis, the keeper and maintainer of
a certain ill-governed and disorderly house, where men and women come and meet together for the purpose of concubinage. He, the defendant, well knowing the said Davis to be the keeper and maintainer of a common brothel and intending by such recommendation to ensnare and debauch and cause to be ensnared and debauched, the said Mary Jones, against the peace of the people of the state of New
York and their dignity. The other counts stated the offence in a more general manner, but in substance it was the same. Hugh Maxwell, district attorney and Mr. Price for the people, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Gardiner for the prisoner.
Mr. Maxwell. This case is novel in the history of our criminal jurisprudence. It appears in evidence that a young female stranger by the name of Mary Jones some time ago came to the city for a place as chambermaid in a decent family. She applied to the defendant as the keeper of a public intelligence office for a place
and he furnished her with several tickets intending the names of persons who want her application without not being want of a servant and she found that several of these persons had never applied to the defendant. When he presupposed that her patience was exhausted and knowing her to be in a destitute situation he gave her tickets for a Mrs. Davis, the keeper of a common brothel in College
Street. The woman lent her a suit of clothes and otherwise decorated her with the reception of visitors. Finding it to be a house of ill fame the girl escaped at twelve at night, wandered through the streets and at length seeing a light in or near the Jews' synagogue recently erected, she crept in there for a shelter and slept on the carpet to shavings.
After this, in her wanderings through the streets of the city, she was taken up by the watchman and by the artless simplicity of her story created an interest in her favour. She complained to the grand jury and one of the gentlemen belonging to that body sent her home to his family. Such is the nature of the case, the particulars of which will be detailed by the principal
witness. Witness for the people. Mary Jones, and between seventeen and eighteen years old, on my first arrival in New York from New Brunswick in the packet, I went first to the intelligence office kept by defendant. After I had escaped from the house of Mrs. Davis, I stayed in the synagogue which was
on Saturday night. Then I went to Brooklyn and the next day went to church. I returned and went to the office again and told defendant that he had recommended me to a bad house, which he admitted he knew something about the house and entered into an indecent conversation with me and spoke of the advantage I might derive from walking
in Broadway towards Evening for Suitors. I saw Thorpe in the office. Then he commenced an indecent conversation with me and afterwards he accompanied me to a Mrs. Gautier's in Chamber Street for a place. John Thorpe was in the intelligence office when Mary Jones came in and she then passed
by the name of Mary Ann Warner. It was cold and she was thinly clad and invited her to enter the gate and come near the stove when a conversation between us ensued. The witness proceeded in a rapid manner and without the least qualification to state the words alleged by him to have been uttered by her being the most scandalous and indecent
which the language can afford. Cross-examined, was in the employ and attended the office of defendant. I gave Mary Jones a ticket for Mrs. Davis, she having previously sent an order for a chamber maid by the captain of her house. The court ordered this witness to be taken into custody.
Adolf Gatterfield cooperated the statement of Thorpe in many particulars, especially in the indecent behaviour and language of Mary Jones. He differed from that witness in his description of her dress. Barrent Gardenier. Defendant, though in indigent circumstances, was assiduous in his business and devoted
his attention to rendering his family comfortable. His general character is good. Several witnesses concurred with the last in showing the defendant's general character. Anne Adeline Parmeter. Witness for the defendant.
About two years ago, defendant recommended me as a private instructoress in the family of Honourable DeWitt Clinton. Have known defendant two years and his character is good. Dr. Hosek, by consent of counsel. One of the family of a Mrs. Lavaty in the city, stated to me that that gentleman found
Mary Jones in a tailor shop, seeking employ and finding her in a destitute situation, gave her a place in his family. Israel Case. One of the jurors. Ten or twelve years ago, Adolf Gatterfield was in my employ and was then in some repute,
but afterwards he kept a dance house in Tyrone Row. After Mrs. Wilson and Price had summed up the case to the jury, Gardenier moved the court for an adjournment of the cause, for the purpose of enabling the defendant to produce further testimony touching the character of Mary Jones. Maxwell consented.
The court adjourned until the next morning, cautioning the jurors to hold no conversation with and receive no communication from any person on the subject of this case. March 3rd. Gardenier opened the further defence by stating to the jury that he should prove that Mary Jones, on her passage from New Brunswick to the city in the packet, and during her stay
on board, behaved in an indecent and incontinent manner. He should go further and show that she had been discharged from the house of Lavaty and that of Gabriel Lewis, where she went to service after the time of the injury complained of in this indictment, by reason of indecent conversation and demeanour. William G. Keach and John Autor said that about the last of November the girl, Mary
Jones, and they both identified, came from New Brunswick in a packet called the Greyhound, and that her conduct on board, according to her confessions to them, were scandalous in the extreme. Robert Grant, a coloured man, and Hannah Timmins, servants in the family of Gabriel Lewis, the conduct of Mary Jones while there was grossly indecent and for that reason she was discharged.
Rebuttal Engel Myers Three or four days after New Year, Mary Jones came from New Brunswick to this city in a packet. She was poorly dressed and requested me to recommend her to a place, and I sent her to
Miss Isaacs, a Jewess, living in or near the synagogue, where she remained about a week, while on board the vessel her demeanour was good. Mary Jones, recalled, asked why she did not yesterday state that on her first arrival in the city she went to live with Mrs Isaacs, answered, hesitatingly, first, that she did not want to state about her being with that woman, and next she forgot it.
She denied the indecency attributed to her on board the packet by Keach and Otter, and also that in the House of Lewis, by his servants. She further denied that she came to this city from New Brunswick in November. The books of defendant, containing the names of applicants for places and also those for produced, from which it appeared that, on the 13th of January, Mary Ann Warner applied
for a place as a chambermaid, and that, on the 19th of the same month, Mary Jones applied for the same situation, and the application of Sarah Davies for a woman in that capacity appears to have been made the same day. Radcliffe, Mayor, to the jury. Supposing Mary Jones to be a decent woman, and that she was beguiled by the defendant
to enter the House of Davies, knowing that she kept a House of Ill-Fame, this is conceded to be a misdemeanour. But, suppose she was not an innocent woman, and was sent to that House by the defendant. Would this be a public offence? The defendant, being the keeper of a public intelligence office, is bound to conduct that
business with fidelity, insomuch as it was an office in this community of considerable public importance. Should the jury believe that Mary Jones was an innocent person, and that the defendant beguiled her into the House of Davies, knowing that to be a House of Ill-Fame, in the view of the court, this would be a very high-handed misdemeanour.
But the evidence in this case presents another question. Suppose this to be a woman of ill-fame, as some of the witnesses for the defendant represent. A defendant recommended her to the House of Davies, knowing its character. Is she guilty of a public offence? In other words, has the keeper of an intelligence office the right of supplying women for Houses
of Ill-Fame? The court does not hesitate on this subject to say that it considers this also a misdemeanour. The principal question, therefore, for the determination of the jury in this case is whether the defendant, at the time he recommended Mary Jones to the House of Davies, knew that she kept a House of Ill-Fame.
On this point, testimony is not direct, and the jury, in determining, may recur to all the facts and circumstances of the case. Should the jury believe that the defendant did not know the character of the House, he ought to be acquitted. But if he had this knowledge, and sent Mary Jones there for the purpose of prostitution,
whether she was an innocent woman or not, he ought to be found guilty. Verdict. Guilty. 30 April. The defendant was brought up for sentence.
Mr. Gardenier, moved in arrest of judgement on the grounds that the offence set out in the indictment was unknown to the common law, that there was no precedent or statute for it. The court. There is a distinction between an injury of a private nature and a public offence.
This is like the case of a grocer charged with using false weight when the offence is that the grocer deals with the public at large, and it is therefore a crime in him that it would not be so if practised by a private individual. The keeper of a public intelligence office is as much connected with the public as a grocer, and the offence of which he has been found guilty is more atrocious in a public
point of view than selling by false weights and measures. In consideration of the prisoner's poverty, the punishment will be a fine of $25 and costs. End of section 35. Read by Inco.
