The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-11-28
CASE SENTENCED.
Five Years at Hard Labor In
the State Prison.
JUDGE DAVIS on DELINQUENT OFFICIALS
A Scathing Judicial Warning Delivered
from the Bench.

At length, after repeated delays with alienation Of
hope and despair the sentence OF the law has been
passed upon Robert l. Case, exPresident OF the So.
curty Lie Insurance Company, whose recent convic-
zion IN the Court OF Oyer and Tcrmncr OF perjury In
having sworn a alse statement as to the condition
of tho company created the time not only the most
profound CONSERVATION In she ranks Of lie insurance
officials, but was generally regarded as Few de-
parture In this novel branch OF legal procedure.
Such has been presented IN the court for
long time that exhibited yesterday in tho closing
OF this painful drama-passing OF sentence by
Judge DAVIS upon the convicted perjurer. dense
throng crowded the court room which lis
tened with rapt attention to the remarks
oil Judge Davis occupying nearly TWO hours before he
reached hts nal sentence The prisoner looking de-
jected and careworn, accompanied by HIS wife and
daughters sat near his counsel, Messrs. Winfield and
Sullivan, and when the words uttered condemn
ing him feon's cell he seemed utterly crushed BY
the blow.
DENYING NOTION FOR 4 NEw TRIAL
Foremostly Judge Davis gave his decision upon the
motion in arrest OF judgment and for new trial. He
stated that technical would not invadate
verdict especially in a criminal case, when such tech.
nca error did result the prejudice OF the de-
fendant. As to the matter Of perjury he SAID
that the crime consisted In the faisity OF the state
ments presented and the assertion that the statement
did not agree with the books was no answer II would
have been fair defence 10 show that the company
held the assets mentioned, and the failure TO do 50
was evidence OF the perjury He SAID further that as
to the way the oath administered that mere
matter Of iorm tho asserting that the statements
were true and the signing thereof was sufficient
proof OF the intended to pass the statement OF
true, and one which was required by tho
to be furnished annually to the proper officers
OF the State He then proceeded to review the case in
ali its aspects and after denying the motion Tor
new trial District Attorney Phelps moved for passing
of sentence.
Upon this motion Judge DAVIS addressed the pris-
onor follows:-
Robert L. Case, cannot recall in the Of long
painful duty than that which devoves upon You
xrs an aged yergng upon three score years and ten
that long lie borne excellent repuatlon Men have
I
less had :. a time: unboundsd confidence In your ntsg
tSl . sow 5 n
nave an trial and soa"is
tion. which the circumstances Of the seemed TO
;asss f Sa, NOT only
shS .s
The q for The life
securities which rendered It safe sought
lay something for their families which might enjoyed
iS
ansons for the security Of %. future 70 IL
their widows and their the orphan children
can conceive Of no trust more sacred than that repossd
Of such nsssussn YET eosSsa WIN iii i that
g W.T.. AZ a1s
hs 20 Of SSnx Ss
lain he g,is:
Which ns The 4. %s
income for 1875 irsm that and
:: e Win such total a.
gate o. assets Y truly stated men might well s.pads in
and Of al the Osers truly
cannot admi. Of Question How was that duty performed
on hand 3ist Of Decem6er in that nstnu,on ia
ysa a.s IN s.:a ssSs.sa Is
I: formed Large share n e the gross
truth was there In the assertions 20 these
e
Losses msds ss yoS had less than
sllege In that report to be on hand
RkauIREAEsrs or fHx STATUS
Tho statute required should state what part Of
assets invested in real estate and presented
consisted q Of the offices IN which your
& Ss . Il IN Aes
sSs Ct SSS s
s 81 as YET IL se ss 81 al.
Wss ss
Is Worth $4,000 subject TO an o.
a ss os hs ass s.
some one Tor the p.lpaols purpose q deception
inquiry although haSs been a
Of iuves.igasop III this case. And 50, upon io.,.
ssssinsS you; trial ri: great .s o T $4,000
total ait deducting all incutnbraness OF nearly half
million tina. which .le
tor their families in the future
when alsehood is developed by proof only
offered + tina. you were possibly snoIa. >, .hs real
,csonAs Ss oY 1nf Law 30 s,eusr
earthly tribunal but in the of Justice,
the o. the o. the law and a the
necessary that such Ignorance should not be accepted
lion q your duty . lsssssn.: and s s"s
have suffered ySs..si to be rnoran.ls dupad
fall upon you The proiscton the public mus, DO re-
@ hs aay nsos
be abandoned must loo& tor themselves though
holding such position .yoais to be per-
msn this sa then @ back
upon the pul pie. u Ignorance OF the fact which duty
TIL. sSas mi. sa'n IN tact taken
would show terrible condition Of sGinss ia rs.pee. to
these corporation Il y be true As SUGGESTED that this
Of similar eorpora,,o,nIs l say i would de.
veup terrible condition OF things In respect
mode In which solemn MAKING these
reports performed. Who have any confidence II IL be
that instead OF the real osths required by law sm.
lated oaths are deposited with the public auhortics and
II II be true that these officers OF such
when charged with sehooi by the apparent
ne, TALL back the claim that that
really to- but substantially forgery and though
made signed and He'd by him u had only sembapcs of
bS he sa can SAY s on sas
defence not surprising that jurics should disregard
and discard II think the Jury acted In the discharge OF
their dnty wisely In saving that under all sho cireum
will hold that 1.-THE prisoncrI In this csse
mall ivpat nj
IN Hing this shall be heard without the
evidence 10 10 and able
that that which was hcd was public 10. And do
not regret that the jury came TO that verdict;
should regret IL " with experience In the
balancing and weighing OF testimony In my mind