Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1866-10-06
Law and Record Of Judge Chaffee's s
Court,


AT the January term of the Court of
Common Pleas of Lake County, 1864, a
resident of Painsville by the name of Will
liam NJ. Cooley, was indicted, tried, and
by jury found guilty of grand larceny.
(otealing property to the value of s35 or
upwards.) After the jury had returned
their verdict, and before the sentence of
the Court, the counsel for Cooley filed
motion for a new trial, and on the next
day argured the same at great length,
when the Hon. VIM. L. Perkins (who
was with the Prosecuting Attorney, w.
w. Nevison, acting as counsel for the
State,) arose to reply to the counsel for
Cooley. The Court said he did not wish
to hear an argument for the State, and
at once overruled the motion for new
trial, remarking that he chad no earthly
doubt about the law of the case, nor of
the defendants guilt" He then called
up Cooley for sentence, and inquired
what he had to say why sentence should
not be pronounced Whereupon, Cooley
said he had a good deal to say, and was
very insolent in his bearing towards, and
abusive in his laugnage to the Court
said he had been unjustly convicted by
the Judge--that his charge brought
about the verdict, and to use the prison
er's precise language, was "Hke q jug
/ thdReue, all on one side y" that those
who heard it were of the same opinion
that Mayor Steele, Sheriff Wall, & Capt.
Moore, said his charge was an outrage"
After the prisoner had finished this
speech of defiance, Judge Bisse4 who
was present remarked that the Court
ought to add another year TO Che sentence
for his (Godley's) insolence. The court pro-
ceeded to, and did pass Judgment,
which was only one years imprisonmtnt
in the Penitentiary-that being the least
period of time, the Statute having fixed
the time of punishment for the offence not
to exceed seven years, nor less than one
year. The Court said in passing judg-
ment that he was cle0r in his opinion as
to the law, and had no doubt as to his
| (Godley's) guilt, adding very emphati-
cally, "that if he Cooley could not be
convicted and punished on such evidence
better abolish all courts and .j,UieS."
After the prisoner had received his
senetnce, the Court ordered him into the
custody of the Sheriff, to be by him taken
to the Penitentiary. But the speech of
the prisoner to the Court still rang in the
ears of the Judge.
He undoubtedly began to thing that he
had misled the popular vOice-he acted
without first putting out Of his teelerS-in
short had made mistakc-possibly the
prisoner may have some influential friends
who will appear in his path when he
comes up for reelection. So, on the
evening of the day of the sentence, Judge
Chatfee sought out the attorneys on both
sides, and proposed to them to take back
the sentence imposed and instead thereof,
put the prisoner in the Jail of the county I;
Mr.. Neyison, the Prosecuting Attorney,
protested against the proposition of the
Judge, urging that the court had no such
power after verdict and sentencc-that
Cooley was then in the hands of the
Sheriff, ready to be taken to the peniten-
tiary, and therefore beyond the judicial
action of the Court. And moreover the
defendant was guilty-was legally and
fairly convicted, and that nothing could
be justly urged in palliation of his offence
That if he was guilty of petit larceny, he
was guilty of grand larceny-if he stole
any portion of the money he stole it all
(sio0,) as it was all in one package and
found in possession of the criminal. Yet
the Judge so decidedly pressed upon Mr.
Nevison this disposition of the case that
he consented to it, bnt only upon the
condition that he Judge Chaffee) would
assume the sole responsibility of the
act.
Accordingly, on the next morning
Judge c., ordered the Sheriff to bring II
Cooley, who when brought in, acknowl
edged to petit larceny, upon which the
Court sentenced him to jail for tsoents
davs anIv and fined him AfO 6,d costs