The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-12-29
EXCISE TROUBLES.
Recorder Hackett Sentences Self-Con-
feSsed ViOlators of Law.
FINES AND IMPRISONMENT.
an Argument in Favor Of
a Better Law.

Tne Court OF General Sessions was yesterday
crowded to the DOORS 1t being generally understood
that Recorder Hackett would deliver Judgment tho
several excise cases which tho parties accused OF
violating the law had previously pleaded guilty, and
IN whose behalf afndavs In mitigation ofpunishmcnt
had subsequently been submitted. The Recorders
decision was awaited with keen interest. and long be-
fore he took his seat the bench the corridors lead
ing to the court densely thronged by the friends
OF lhe defendants and others anxious to learn what
disposition would be made OF the cases. Indeed,
tho matter formed fruitful theme OF discus
sion for the past two weeks, and many
tho theories advanced tho final ISSUE
Among Tho audience might be seen on the one hand
scores OF prominent liquor Dealers and tho other
solid batch OF the representatives Of the society at
whose instigaion the prosecutions originally in
siituted Assistant District Attorney Russell appeared
for the people and Counscllors Denis A. Spclssy
and PeterGAtchell represented several Of the dc.
PENDANTS Shortly alter eleven O'Clock Mr. Sparks,
Chief clerk OF tho Court, called TO the bar Tor
tence the following named persons :-Georgo Know,
William Walsh, William Dusan, John +. Windoph,
William w. Churchill, Charles Miller Philip Holland,
Richard Eustace John Lee. Joseph Malone, James
OBrien and John Cosgrove
REcoaDER's DECISION.
Recorder Racket. then, amid breathlcss silence
spoke iollows--
Twelve persons confess themselves before the Court
to have been offenders against the Excise law that
each sold liquor without license, aud respecting
some OF them voluminous afldavits and statements,
both cxcupatory and ncupatory. have been ied
behalf oil the DEFENDANTS and the people. These
nttentivciy and reicctveH pcrused and not hastily
Ms some whtppers-n OF morality would have had
consider. WnlIs II is true ignorance OF the law
Is no excuse its or yet the questions whether
IN offender bluIdcrcd into his oloucc misad.
act arc as mucl 10 DO consderca in mi,i-
gaton OF punishment us arc circumstances OF knowi.
edge and willuiness regard greater measure
OF punishment. 1t has been intimated by the Court
nd IN
repeal the Limitation section oil 1857 which hascaused
during the past year MISUNDERSTANDING not only
among liquor Dealers but their lawyers IL would not
be tar, therefore, to impose sentence upon
those OF the offenders AZ bar who appear be blum
dcrcrs rather than wiul and persistent luwbreakers
SENTENCES.
In the first class come Messrs George Know, William
Walsh, William Dugan, John T. Wnuoph, William W.
Churchill aud Charles Miller prime principals and
as secondary principals the barkeepers John Lee and
the OF $2h, bur upon William Dugan, who Keeps q
'buckct shop, impose fine OF 500.
Philip Holland and James O'Bricn indicted for
selling liquor. when unlicensed, on November last
II appears tnat their application was then pending
toward contingent license, but that II Was rejected
und they were Informed Of that fact on November rs
last II Is proved that! Notwithstanding TINS rejection
and notification, they nave since that latter dcied
The law. and am requested by the Jealous COUNCIL for
the prosecuting society TO consider the la,or
hcts IN regard 10 the measure Of punish.
lnent Tor tie earlier This l will not DO
The offenders have not pleaded guilty Of
these later acts. Nothing Is better settled in
criminal law than that the Intention OF wropgdoer
anecedcnt TO or at the time o. offence alone
be considered by jury or court. 1t may BIO tina,
November 8, while the money in escrow and the
application pending, Holland deemed he was not
oncnder The current OF the invest eating evidence
before tends to this; therefore i shall postpone
judgment Oh this case OF November 8, in order that
an opportunity be given to the District Attorney for
fresh indictments, II IL be that notification
they wlllully resisted tho law, and when this fact
shall be technscaly before my jurisdiction shall deal
with II.
John Cosgrovc has pleaded guilty OF selling sprtu
Gus liquors without license Il appears he was IN
mot nH nhar frr rta I'm tuxut .urn
fore then gave him notice that he was not regarded
bsundsrcr. He continued TO violate the law and
was indicted on the 10th OF October Hc still persisted
In violations and inoicted October "a aud this
eiter he was not only notified from this Court
but from the clerk OF the Board OF Excise. that hiS
application had been refused. Richard Eussacc
was hneu $50 october 10 for selling liquor without IL
offender Yet he also persist ed and has pleaded guilty
~ subsequent offence. 10 be enicnt under sucu
substances would be TO become severe IN Judgments
against those who may have sinncd gnoranty or
andcr MISUNDERSTANDING touching payment Of icec,
and in which category stand am told thousands Of
arrested ana bnilcd lqnor sellers ! have carefully
searched the records oi tho Court In respect 70 prtcc
dents Tor punishment do not hnu that viola.ors q
they kept disordcrly houses The Characters Of
Cogrovc and Eustacc have been good and their houaes
reputable. Nevertheless II is impossible entertain
but view Of Their willuness | cannot imprson
IN the CITY Prison, as counsel suggest II is not the
OF New York, and the mandatory OF tho statute
II Imprisonment be selected, Is the County jail l
shall line Cosgrove $l2J and impose additional i'm
prlsonment upon him tor thirty days.
DOUBLING THE PUNISHMENT
AS for Eusace, the manifest policy OF the Revised
Statutes Is To double punishments upon second
offence. and shall impose upon him the full iiue OF
$3.50 and impose the additional and further punish
Eent OF sixty days in the Pentenliary In THIS de-
termination OF SOLICITING the modified imprisonment
OF the year allowed by the statute am also
guided by the plea OF guilty Tho defendants have
saved tho county probable difficulty OF time and
pense IN obtaining unbiased pel. jurors aud possibly
ments as TO verdic,s Were they before inc Tor SEN
tence alter defiant legal contest should, as have
many times announced ny determination impose the
OF Appeals No. 80, New York reports, p. 32l. In
ding these memoranda along with tho various
aiiidavits l teel II my duty 10 shield the
District Attorney from unmcrted criticism
to harsh nvun--that was recently made
upon him by Jealous diviue, ana which,. because
published TO the million readers or our daily press, may
become crroneousiy lodged IN the public mind hat
officer mas no control an Indictment after convic-
ton. The time Tor judgments only with tho
Court BY the usage OF this Court, with IT'S
bus the District Attorney is always credited with
motion Tor Judgment nslanter, upon plea OF guilty
or when 4 convection BY jury Is gwen sometimes
when he desires 50 TO do, ne emphasizes this MOTION
by remarks IN aid OF tho conscience OF the Court 1
have never found the District Attorney on the one
nund timd Or irresoiutc nor on mo other, either a
prosecutor spasnodic legal machns,, and thi nix
u pubic apology is due him from the distinguished
divine whom am told has cioquently Preached from
the maxim N the old law book OF Solomon. see Prov
erbs, XVII 81 Douay vcraion"rie patient man Is bet
Ter Than the valiant. ho that rueth his spirit than
he that taxeth citlts"
Tho Recorder concluded his remarks by saying That
wia matter oil regret ~ nm that this troupio ma
arisen ia the community; that the law rs IL row stood
was iull of and that It's enforcement had been
marked by very grave misconduct must DO palpaDlo
" the mind VI evory man III tho community VINO
thinks Tor moment. He should be very glad, in
oftnc SITUATION II tho Legislature ~ It's earliest
meeting would provide some means whereby the
present evils could Dc avoided by passing good cx-
cisc law No man could doubt fora moment tho ncces-
sites which exist in great city like this Tor an cxcisc
law which would restrain mon IRON dissipation
from indalsng IN aplri,uous iquor, which only
tend to lnilrnto aud madden them. Day after
m
crimes 10 drunkenness, say ing, III did not know
what was DOING because drunk Tho
who drank The poison that stole away his brains and
claimed that in cxtenuation oil his offence observed
but litic uiorcy, Tor tho universal application OF the
law that drunkenness could not man Tor
iii of his CRIME The experience OF III ost
taugul tnum that great deal oil the and
misery developed IN criminal court nusbands
numbering their wives, wivDs Killing their husbands
and tho nkc--or.g inatcd the abuse OF liquor All
good desired thar It's sale should be marked
BY moderation, that u should not BIO disposed
OF those VINO were unable 10 take
OF themselves aud that right done. The