Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-12-15
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.

The Communication of "Rebe1 George"
A correspondent of the RECORD UNION
writes as follows concerning the commuta-
ton of the term of imprisonment of Robert
Rae, sentenced from Sacramento county to
serve term of ten years Imprisonment
for grand larceny. The communication
was called forth by an editorial in San
Francisco paper of yesterday, criticising
the Governors action, and enormously
stating that Rae's victim became insane
from the loss of his money, and is now an
inmate of an insane asylum
The facts accompanying the commuta-
ton of Robert Rae present a justification
for he action of the Prison Directors in
recommending, and the Executive in
granting, the Communication. The question
of the distinction between the offense of
obtaining money or property by false pre-
lenses (which is misdemeanor), and grand
larceny, was clearly outlined in this case
for the first time in this State. The circum-
stances of this case are familiar to the pub
lie. The prisoner received $160 from one
John HalIett, q resident of Halifax, New
Brunswick, giving pretended United
States bond as security. There was no
felonious taking in the usual sense, because
Hallett parted with his money voluntarily,
q
City Attorney, who prosecuted the case to a
final judgment in the Supreme Court, took
the ground that this was larceny by trick
and fraud, and that no element of a con-
tract existed, because of the previous in tent
to appropriate the money thus secured. A
large number of State Supreme Courts have
held that this was not larceny, but obtain
ing money by false pretenses. In this case,
however, the Supreme Court of this State
was divided and four of the seven Judges
Ia bare majority held that the crime was
larceny. The penalty in obtaining money
by false pretenses is Imprisonment not to
exceed one year; in grand larceny not to
exceed ten years. Notwiths landing this
close distinction, the penalty inflicted on
Rae was the extreme of ten years, which,
under the circumstances was claimed
to be excessive and unjust-for had
one of the Judges held differently, the
extreme could only have been one year.
The case of Rebel George" is a noted
one He was twice tried in the Superior
Court, the first jury failing to agree. On
the second trial verdict of guilty was OBJ
tanned. Previous to the last trial, John
Hallett, the one who lost the money, was
reimbursed by friends of the defendant,
and had started on his homeward trip,
when ne was apprehended brought back,
ana COnun6Q IN prison as d WllueSS uiltll
the second tlial. AS soon as the trial was
ended he went on his way to his home in
Halifax, where he now resides, or, at least
at last notice resided. While there was no
offer of justification for the act of Rae in
obtaining the $160 from his victim, there
was such diversity of opinion as to the
nature of the offense, and the fact that our
learned Judges themselves could not agree,
that the wife OF the prisoner was
prompted by that noble devotion which
characterizes true wife, to seek commute
ton OF the sentence. To this end her pc
tition contained the names of the General
and Division Superintendents of the Cen
trail Pacific Railroad Company (the prosecu-
ton having been greatly assisted by the
railroad officers, on account of the crime
being perpetrated on the cars of the COM
panyl, every juror who tried the case, the
attorney who conducted the prosecution
from the first to the last, all the leading
merchants and citizens, and officers of the
city, as well as the Superior Judge and Dis
trict Attorney. The prisoner suffered a
three-year term for the offense, which was
deemed adequate punishment. With such
a noble, self-sacrifcing wife, it is difficult
TO see why the pardoned man will mot be
prompted to lead an exemplary life for her
sake. This he has promised to do