THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, November 17, 1995 TAG: 9511170647
SECTION: PORTSMOUTH CURRENTS PAGE: 14 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: Olde Towne Journal
SOURCE: Alan Flanders
LENGTH: Medium: 88 lines
In the annals of legal history, surprise verdicts, no matter what the public sentiment, aren't new. Take for instance ``The Florestine Affair'' of 1818.
The story of one of the area's most sensational and unpredictable trials began in the late summer of that year when the French schooner Florestine prepared to leave Norfolk's harbor.
On the day of the schooner's departure, the crew was called to muster. To the captain's dismay, several of his crewmen were absent without leave. He immediately reported the incident to the port's quarantine officer, who then passed the word on to the local constabulary on both sides of the Elizabeth River to be on the lookout for several missing French seamen being led by a ``mate'' from the Florestine named John Garonde.
Havoc broke out on the Florestine some time later when the ship's agent reported to the captain that $2,000 was missing. Interest in the whereabouts of the missing French seamen rose considerably with local authorities after charges against Garonde and the others were posted for both desertion and robbery.
Finding the suspects in the teeming Norfolk and Portsmouth waterfronts was another matter as it was in 1818 a labyrinth of small shipyards, warehouses, alleyways and taverns. It was thus a haven for seamen from a number of foreign navies who often found refuge after ``jumping ship'' and hard currency for stolen goods.
Making matters worse for the authorities were a number of ``safe'' houses that supplied room and lodging without registry for any number of suspicious characters passing through the area. One such dwelling was that of Portsmouth resident John Joseph.
``Suspicious movements'' at the Joseph house were reported to Portsmouth magistrates Arthur Emmerson and Mordecai Cooke.
Gathering with them several other citizens, Emmerson and Cooke armed themselves and proceeded to surround the house. After waiting for some time, both magistrates decided it was time for action and ``forcibly entered it.''
From the 1818 edition of the Norfolk Herald, the following account of the capture of Garonde and his fellow fugitives is extracted:
``They surrounded the house and secured two of them, but Garonde, the principal rogue, and another named Antoine, were missing. A strict search throughout the house was made by them, but without success. In a back room lay an ill-looking fellow on a mattress which was spread on the floor. He was made to rise, and while one of the magistrates was examining him, one of the party carelessly rolled over the mattress with his foot, when there appeared a small trap-door, just large enough to admit a man through it. One of the citizens immediately descended into a cellar half full of water, and with the help of a candle, presently found the culprit Garonde. Antoine, it was expected, had fled to Norfolk.
``Upwards of $600 in gold and silver was found on Garonde, quilted in a kind of sash and wrapped round his body. He had a horse and chair at the door, and was that night to have set off for Petersburg, having left $100 with the person from whom he hired them, by way of pledge for their return. About $600 was found next day on the person of Antoine, and he was sent to keep his worthy friends company in the jail at Portsmouth. Too much cannot be said in commendation of the magistrates and citizens, for prompt and active exertions in securing the villains.''
In what was predictably touted as an ``open and shut'' case, a trial of the Frenchmen was set for Oct. 21 at the Norfolk County Court. Spectators in the courtroom watched in the comfort of an easily predictable outcome as the commonwealth produced what they called ``the stolen money'' found in the possession of Garonde and his associates. But then the case against Garonde and his associates began to unravel.
When asked to prove that the money seized during the capture of Garonde had indeed been on the schooner, the prosecution could not prove that the alleged stolen money had ever been on the ship. Making matters worse for the commonwealth was the failure of their star witness, the ship's agent, who originally brought the charges, to show up for testimony.
During the trial it was learned that the agent had not been on the ship prior to the robbery, which greatly lessened the impact of his charge. Going on the theory that as deserters, they could be held on breaking quarantine and curfew laws, the commonwealth next called the vessel's captain, who also failed to appear.
The court had no other option than to acquit Garonde much to the dismay of the magistrates and shock of the spectators. The local newspaper summarized in just a few words what makes the American legal process so difficult to predict.
``Strong as was the evidence, and satisfied as the court must have been that he was guilty, the voice of the law pronounced him innocent.'' by CNB