Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1875-03-10

much could not be properly his due quar-
terlv. He had thus drawn in n veal
some s.. 900, when he was only entitled tf
about $1,000. The calculation Of his coml
missions was Il very simple matter. Coult
it be supposed that he was not aware thai
he was taking more than he was entitle'
to? Again it appeared from the evidence
before the grand jury. that Mr.. Crane
checked from this disbursing fund indis
c~riminatclv, for his privateiuse. In enter
ing mol pros on the first count, he did no
concedc that Mr.. Crane was not guilty Q
taking the money. Nor did he assert tina
Mr.. Jewctt took it.
He was forced, from all the circum
stances, to the Inference that the respond
cnt took the money understandingly OF
rccklcssly, and without proper examine
ton rs to what was his due.
a question having arisen as to the eX
tent of punishment. Judge Shipman re
qucsteI the District Attorney and counse
to examine and report in the morning.
The District Attorney remarked
that on investigation it was found that un
der the statute, there could be no sentenc,
to the state prison in this case, for the rea
son that 4 prisoner could not be sentenced
by the Federal Court TO hard labor. which
condition the law of this state requires il
cases of sentences to state prison.
In passing sentence his honor said that
it was admitted that the respondent was
guilty of cmbtZZlemcnt of the funds in hi,
control as a di>bursing officer of the Uni
ted States. The circumstances of the cas-,
had been fully detailed both by the Dis
trict Attorney and the counsel of the nc.
cuscd. In regard to the amount of the de.
~ticiencv of $1,000 in his accounts is col
lcctor of internal Revenue. the court cal
have no opinion a> to the respondent.
guilt or innocence. 1t WAS not for til,
court to ASSUME that Crane had taken tn,
money, and the District Attorney had no,
said. nor should not say it. in view of the
fact tlatthere vas another case pending
Which involved the same charge ayainsl
another ~rcr>on-in view of the fact that
the our was of the opinion that when
Mr.. Crane entered upon the duties of his
office. he was not adapted to discharg,
them either by his knowledge or expert
rnce. He apparently considered the office,
rs too many are accustomed to in these
days. a> 4 >inecure, the lahors Of which
could be given to clerks. the mere ma
chine, in the office. his tmbezzlrmen,
III the discussing account. while technically
arrlme and involving criminal negligence.
dId not manifest 50 much moral obliquitv
a II 1t were proved that he had APP Jropri-
atel the deficiency to his own use.
In The matter of the false entries. the re-
>pondfnt had doubtless said to himself, |
VIII conceal the deficiency in the hope
that time viii tile over the matter, and
he continued Il practice which WAS Il wrong
both 10 the public and government
Therefore he should be punished. The
%onJert> OF punishment are two-fpld, one
beng 10 deter others from the commission
OF Il crime by warning them of the conSr-
4urncc>. And IN us much rs he could not
lawfully >tntel cc the respondent to hard
labor, by consigniny him to state prison.
It WAS the sentence of the court that for
the crime of enlightenment he should be
imprisoned IN the county jail at Windsor
III this state for 4 period OF one Year and
pay i fine of $1,000. and stand committed
TIL the line was pad. For making false
he should be imprisoned at the
place >iN months after the expiration
81 III" tmr OF his imprisonment for cmbcz-
and pay Il tine of $1,000. He
did not >eMtrMc" The respondent 10 impri>-
"nn'nt IN the jill in tins cuuntv. for the
that he desired the punishment
should b" more severe than it would DE TO
c"ntlnr him where lie could enjoy the So
~lrty OF his family and friends during hi,
imprisonment.