Matthews v. United States

192 F. 490, 113 C.C.A. 96, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4868
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 21, 1911
DocketNos. 3,423, 3,424
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 192 F. 490 (Matthews v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matthews v. United States, 192 F. 490, 113 C.C.A. 96, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4868 (8th Cir. 1911).

Opinion

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

[1] Between 11 and 12 o’clock of the night of May 22, 1909, an east-bound train on the Union Pacific Railroad known as the “Overland Fimited No. 2,” carrying United States mail, was stopped in the outskirts of Omaha, Neb., at a place known as Mud Cut, by masked highwaymen. The trainmen and postal clerks were put in fear of their lives by threats and display and discharge of firearms. The highwaymen compelled the opening of the mail car, and took and carried away seven pouches and sacks containing valuable registered mail. Section 5472, Rev. Stats. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3694), provides that any one who robs a carrier, agent, or other person intrusted with the mail, of such mail, and in effecting the robbery wounds the custodian or puts his life in jeopardy by the use of dangerous weapons, shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for the term of his natural life. Five men were apprehended, jointly indicted, tried and convicted of robbery of the mails as above defined in the statute and each was accordingly sentenced. Omitting mention of various aliases the men were Donald W. Woods, Fred Torgenson, Frank Grigware, Jack Shelton, and William Matthews. Shelton and Matthews prosecuted these writs of error. Each says the evidence [491]*491was not sufficient in law for his conviction. No other question is presented.

It is contended by Shelton and Matthews that the evidence showed conclusively that but four men participated in the robbery, and since five were convicted that there must necessarily have been a miscarriage of justice. Supplementing this, it is urged that three of them, Woods, Torgenson, and Grigware, were fully identified, but that the evidence was insufficient to identify Shelton or Matthews as the fourth, or indeed, aside from the precise number engaged, to prove either of them guilty of the crime. It may be said at the outset that it was shown by overwhelming proof that Woods, Torgenson, and Grigware took leading parts in the robbery. The evidence as to Shelton and Matthews was not so direct and positive, but was in general of a more circumstantial character. Only that 'which tends to show their participation in the crime and that which is explanatory or helps to a better understanding of it need be reviewed here.

The train robbery was committed Saturday night, May 22, 1909. In January of that year and previously, Woods, Torgenson, Grigware, and Shelton were acquaintances if not associates in Spokane, Wash. Shelton had known Grigware a good many years. Matthews had lived in Buhl, Idaho. Early in 1909 Shelton was with Woods, Tor-genson, and Grigware in Denver, Colo. While there a photograph was taken showing all four of them in an automobile with a woman with whom Shelton was intimate. Rater the four men were in Hot Springs, Ark. The Denver woman corresponded with Shelton, Woods, and Torgenson while they were there. Early in April, 1909, Shelion, Woods, Torgenson, and Grigware appeared in Kansas City, Mo.; also Matthews. On April 3, 1909, Matthews, by the name of Marvin, ordered a suit of clothes of a tailor in Kansas City. Grig-ware was with him. The tailor, as was customary, put a marker in the coat showing his business card, the name of the customer and the date of the order. When Matthews was arrested in Idaho June 18, 1909, the marker had been removed. Save for a short absence all live of the men were frequently seen in Kansas City until about the middle of May, 1909. Singly and in parties of two, three, and four they visited women in rooming houses — Matthews with Woods and Grigware, Shelton with Woods, Torgenson, and Grigware, and Matthews with Woods, Torgenson, and Grigware. They do not appear to have had other companions. At various times when in Kansas City Shelton and Woods roomed together, as did Grigware and Tor-genson, and Woods and Torgenson. They visited each other at their rooms; Matthew's also visited them.

About a week before the robbery all five of them appeared in Omaha and the same association among themselves was maintained. On May 16th Matthews rented a room in Omaha and Woods soon aft-erwards joined him. They vacated it about 3 p. m. of Saturday, the 22d, the day of the rohbery. On the same afternoon between 1 and 2 o’clock Matthews and Shelton rented a room, but Shelton did not remain long. On May 17th Torgenson and a young man who was not identified rented a room. The latter left on Monday the [492]*49224th, two days after the robbery. On the 25th Shelton joined Grig-ware in a room the latter had rented the day before. On the same day Woods went to room with Torgenson. There were other movements of their habitations. When Woods, Torgenson, and Grigware were arrested on the night of Thursday, May 27th, Shelton and Grigware were roommates, and Woods and Torgenson, while Matthews was by himself. All five of the men patronized the same restaurant, though they did not go or leave together.

About May 20th Shelton, Matthews, Torgenson, and Woods were seen near the Union Pacific Railroad about a mile west of Mud Cut where the train was stopped. On the afternoon of Saturday, May 22d, the day of the robbery, some of the defendants were seen at Fremont, Neb., 46 miles west of Omaha. During the afternoon of that day five west-bound trains on the Union Pacific Railroad ran out of Omaha to and through Fremont, their schedule time between the two cities being from 55 minutes to 1 hour and 40 minutesl Between 5 and 6 o’clock-that evening Shelton went to the rear of a residence in Fremont, and asked for and obtained a drink of water. He then filled a vessel with water and took it to an open place some distance away near the railroad tracks where several other men were preparing their meal. In the morning of the same day Woods went to a bookstore in Fremont and bought maps of Nebraska’and South Dakota. During the day Woods, Torgenson, and another man not fully identified were drinking in a saloon in that city. The barkeeper had met Woods before and so accosted him. Woods remembered their former meeting. About 9 o’clock that night Grigware asked the night ticket clerk at the Union Pacific depot in Fremont about eastbound “No. 2,” the train which was afterwards stopped at Mud Cut. He went again and got a Union Pacific folder.' No. 2 was due out of Fremont at 10:20 p. m. and at Omaha at 11:55. The proof was direct and clear that four of the defendants were at Fremont the afternoon just before the robbery. It may be said here that during the time their movements were traced, down to the time of the robbery the defendants did not appear to have followed or been engaged in any lawful occupation for their livelihood. There was an attempt to show that Shelton was working as a railroad ticket “scalper” in Kansas City, but the evidence was not persuasive. He himself said the only acquaintances he and his companions made in Kansas City “to amount to anything” were the women they met. ■ „

The engineer, fireman, a second fireman riding free on the engipe, and seven postal clerks testified to the particulars of the robbery. As the train neared Mud Cut two of the masked highwaymen climbed over the tender into the cab, and at the point of revolvex-s compelled the engineer to stop the train, and then with the two firemen to dismount. They were met on the ground by a third similarly masked. A shot was fired through the window of the mail car. The car was opened finder threats, and the postal clerks and the men from the engine were. made to stand in line where they were searched for weapons. The conductor and a brakeman were driven back into the train by shots.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

William Dennis Riggs v. United States
280 F.2d 949 (Fifth Circuit, 1960)
United States v. Frank Costello
221 F.2d 668 (Second Circuit, 1955)
Barone v. United States
205 F.2d 909 (Eighth Circuit, 1953)
United States v. Feinberg
140 F.2d 592 (Second Circuit, 1944)
Weisman v. United States
1 F.2d 696 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)
Bergera v. United States
297 F. 102 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)
Dierkes v. United States
274 F. 75 (Sixth Circuit, 1921)
West v. United States
258 F. 413 (Sixth Circuit, 1919)
Looker v. United States
240 F. 932 (Second Circuit, 1917)
Hays v. United States
231 F. 106 (Eighth Circuit, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 F. 490, 113 C.C.A. 96, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-united-states-ca8-1911.