Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-10-26
LOCAL iNTELLTGENGE.
CONE COMMITTED.
Judge buckley Says He Cannot Modify
ths Sentence.

Judge Buckley Says He Cannot Modif,
ths Sentence.
the Police Court yesterday Judge Buckley
listened to an argument ON the question of the
modification of the sentence of w. W. Cone, con
victed of petit larceny in approprlating to hi.
own use u money order sent to him by mistake
Cone was sentenced in the Police Court to six
months in the County Jail, without the alter
native of fine. An appeal was taken to the
Superior Court, and Judge Armstrong on We'd
nesdsy affirmed the decision of the lower Court
and refused TO modify the sentence.
Yesterday morning Cone appeared in Court
with his young wife, who wept bitterly during
the argument, and finally joined her prayers for
mercy to those of the attorney. When the Court
finally decided that it Was not in his power TO
modify the sentence, the scene was indeed a
trying one, and reused the sympathies of even
those who are calloused by continuous attend
ance al Court.
Mr.. Anderson made one of the most earnest
and eloquent appeals In behalf of his client
ever listened to in the Police Court. He said
that he recognized the proposition that the laws
are intended to be just, and are just, but often
u the admi JistratiOn of the laws we find in
equai tiles and injustice. In this case there had
been grave doubt whether the crime of lar
ceny had been committed, but the case had
been decided and with that he had nothing
further to do; but he did not think that ii was
one involving moral turpitude, as in the case of
hardened criminals. The defendant was man
OF standing IN the community and man of
character-of this the Court was bound to take
notice. 1t was not the policy of the law to ruin
man absolutely and unqualifedly The OBJ
ject of the law was to mete out punishment
commensurate with the ofense committed He
thought that the judgment had been rendered
without that due deliberation and careful
thought which should characterize the decis-
ions of Court. In such case as this a light
Judgment was in excess of the crime
charged, assuming that the defendant was
guilty. He believed that it was a matter that
rested entirely with the conscience of the Judge
and that the prosecution had no right TO come
into Cours and attempt to influence the Judge
He he'd that right as counsel for the defendant
because he appeared in behalf of humanity and
on the side of mercy. He held that the Court
had absolute power and control over its judg-
ments until they were executed. Ofcourse this
was not written down in the statute but it was
one of those unwritten laws that is higher than
the statutes and fIom which there was no ap-
peal. There was no written law for withhold
Ing commitments, but the Court exercised that
power continually. He reviewed the proceed
ings in the case at length and cited authorities
In support OF his position.
C. L. Jones, who had assisted the City Attor-
ney in the prosecution of the case replied to the
arguments of Mr. Anderson. He said that he
was not present because he desired to
be, nor through any ill-teeling toward
not permit a motion TO be made which was ridi-
culous on its face without replying to it. He
had never heard Of Such proceeding, and did
not believe that counsel ever had before. There
was no such thing as an unwritten law. Juries
sometimes rendered decisions contrary to law
but when they did so it was in violation oftheir
oaths. He claimed that the whole question
was settled by Section 1868 of the code which
reads " If the Judgment against the defend
ant Is affirmed, the original judgment must be
enforced" II anything had happened since
the trial TO show that The judgment was too
severe, the only way 10 reach it was to appeal
to the Governor. If the Court would inform the
Governor that something had developed since
the trial to induce him to believe that the judg-
ment was too severe, he believed the Governor
Woul n5.en to the appeal.
MrhInderson replied with great deal of
spirit and bitterness He intimaJed that his
client was being persecuted by the police force,
and said that numerous criminals
had been discharged or punished
with light fines for much greater
offenses He cited the case of Tom. Anderson,
Charged with robbery, convicted of larceny and
sentenced to three months in the County Jail.
He begged the Court to be merciful and give
the defendant the privilege of paying fine in
stead of going 10 prison. If there was no law
for no lily ing the judgment there was none
against il.
Mrs. Cone appealed to the Judge for mercy
Judge Buckley was evidently deeply moved
by the appeals made 10 him, but said that he
could not grant the motion without violating
his oath. He believed that Section 1868 governs
the case, and be could not change the judgment
under that section. The only remedy was in an
appeal to the Governor. He was satisfied if the
judgment was modified the defendant could be
released on habeas corpus.
City Attorney Church finally suggest d TO Mr..
Anderson that he appeal to Judge Armstrong
Tor further hearing in the matter, and counsel
announced that he would do so.
Cone was then committed to the custody OF