New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-11
THE COURTS.

PLEAS ACCEPTED IN CASES OF BRUTAL
JUDGE BARRETT EXPLAINS THE RESULT OF THE
O'TooLE TRIAL-INADEQUACY OF LEGAL PUNISH
MENT FOR CRUEL VIOLENCE.
Edward Mooney was brought before Judge
Barrett In the Court Of Oyer and Terminer for trial on
indictment for MURDER but after some discussion be-
tween his and Judge Barrett and Assistant Dis
trct-Attorney Russell he allowed to plead guilty
OF granddaughter in tho second degree. Mr. Russell
stated though the indictment as is usual In
homicide cases. for murder yet the facts though show
ing most brutal killing did not reveal any intent to
kill his wife. either deliberate, required for murder In
the first hegree sudden as required for mnrder IN
the second degree. Tue prisoner had frequently before
when intoxicated beaten his wife, twice so as TO cndan
ger life. On the last occasion he had undoubtedly
beaten her and kicked her, and she had died from
his brutality. But he had slept beside her that night,
and even next day he had idea OF her state. 1t
manslaughter IN the first degree for there was no
independent yet accompanying ms1emeanor YER
dict Of mansaugher In the secOud degree was there
fore all that could reasonably DC expected from jury
Mr. Howe prisoners counsel stated that the deceased
woman also drunken and the prisoner denied tho
kicking, and mansaugater in the second degree was
the highest ofense Of winch Mooney could be convicted
counsel pleaded for some mercy in the sentence.
Judge Barrett said that he thought the plea was prop
ery pted and In view Of some newspaper criticism
on the District Attorney aud himself for their action u
what was known popularity as tho fatron murder, he
thought proper state his Tie evidence In
O'Toole had been very thoroughly by
himself and the ct-Atorney before the plea was
accepted In that 1t appeared very doubtful
whether jury would find any intent to XIII from the
reckless throwing drunken man Of fatirons through
his window. 1t dark and it was very doubtful
whether OTOoe knew that the in the street
at the time At any there evidence OF such
knowledge presented; and with the that ures
ercised very doubtful whether they would have
found anything more than wanton aud reckless act
justice for in the absence OF intent TO kill under the
Fosters case, ofense sank to the grade OF
in the third Degree the peuaity OF which
was only four years Imprisonment. 50 the plea had
been accepted, the Judge had Inflicted the punish
ment which III bis Judgment the awrequlred ten years
Imprisonment.
In tnis present case said Judge Barrett there Is Just
the Same Guilty there Is not pirucle OF evidence
Of intent Kill All the evidence points TO the crime OF
which Mooney pleaded guilty. True, he struck his wife
and intended to misuse her shanefuy; but the Judge
could this ask the uli an intent TO KILL or
mansaught IN the fist degree WIN all these de-
of manslaughter the law Is still defective for such
brutal this Moneys crima was mdnsau2hter
either fourth degree, tue
a Ole with only two years Imprisonment. There was
the danger III OTOoes case that tle prisoner
might go unwnippod o. Justice for cruel and brutal
attack his The Judge, therefore, approved or
the acceptance OF the plea
Mooney, called up for sentence, stated that he
guilty OF the Ofeuse with wglcn nc was charged
His wife home ntOxIc cd and fell on the stairs
Ihey have had some blows, bat he had no memory
OF the kicking. Judge Barrett said that might well be
as the result of MONEYS own drunkenness; bat his
wife had stated with Ler dying breath Tle law WAS
inadequate to punish such brutal and cruel crimes.
Moneys case without milig ation, and he should
ave hun the extreme penalty, seven years III state
Prison at hard labor.