Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-01-22
JUDGE ARM rRONG.
Ho Make. an Interesting statemsn,

by jury in Judge Armstrong; Court for
burglary in the first degree. in entering the
Palace Restaurant in the City Hotel, came
up. Judge Armstrong said: You have
been informed against by the District At
torney of the county of Sacramento for the
crime of burglary committed in this city !;
you were duly arraigned and pleaded nor
! guilty; jury was impaneled to try your
case you had fair and impartial trial;
| the jury found you guilty. Have you any
legal reason to give now why the sentence
of the Court should not be pronounced
upon your
Mr.. French have not; am not guilty;
| that is all.
| The Judge-The crime of which you have
| been convicted is very serious; its punish
ment should be such as to prevent you
! from repeating it and to prevent others
from the commission of like offenses 1t
was said by very eminent law writer,
many years ago, that it was the certainty
and not the severity of the punishment
that deferred criminals from the commits
sion of crime. Certainty of punishment is
good preventive, but certainty with
severity is better. Experience has demon
strated that certainty and severity of pun
ishment have tendency to prevent thieves,
robbers, burglars, highwaymen and other
criminals from plying their vocations, and
forces them to an honest calling for live
! lihood. 1t is not the amount of money the
burglar obtains as the fruit OF his crime
which should measure the punishment he
| should receive, because he would take
what he found, whether little or much.
The circumstances under which the crime
| is committed should govern the punish
ment. 1t is believed by some, and espe-
| cially by some newspapers that punish
ment should be measured by the amount
of money the thief obtains. That is not
the true criterion. The circumstances sur
rounding the commission of the crime indi-
Gates whether Or not the offender is of the
criminal class, and if he be of the criminal
class, the sentence should be severe; if not,
the sentence should be moderate. The
Judge of a Criminal Court is charged with
the suppression OF crime. Sentences are not
only for the punishment of the particular
offender, but to deter others from the COM
mission of like crimes. 1t is well for the
criminal class of Sacramento to understand
this: That we have a vely efficient Police
Department; that we impanel jurors who
will convict persons charged with CRIME
when guilty, and acquit the innocent and
that, when proper convictions are had, the
offenders will receive such punishment as
they deserve, and which will deter others
from the commission of like crimes.
| The Court then pronounced the sentence
on Joseph French and McKenna, the latter
being the confederate of French.
The Court continued: / wish to say
| to the bar that on Saturday the Sacramento
| Bee took occasion to criticise the sentence
which had been pronounced by this Court
i in the case of the people against Oscar
| Green. That paper grossly misrepresented
| the testimony in that case. In such cases,
as the evidence showed that Of Green to be,
while occupy this seat offenders will re-
ceive severe punishments. The sentence
which he received is fair criterion of what
others may expect.
| Oscar Green committed a robbery in
broad daylight, about 8 o'clock in the
morning, in the presence of two reliable
citizens They detailed the circumstances
under which the crime was committed
| They testified that the defendant, with a
man named Grant, came out of a saloon at
the corner of Fourth and L streets. Grant
| was very much intoxicated-so much so
| that he was entirely helpless and unable to
resist, or to make himself understood that
| the defendant put his hand in Grants
pocket and took his money; that Grant
tried to fight him off, but was unable to de-
| fend himself because of his drunken con-
dition; that the defendant then kicked
| W.
one of the parties who witnessed the rob-
| berry, asked the defendant what was the
matter, the defendant said that Grant was
his friend; that Grant was very drunk, and
| he was going to take care of him.
| The two gentlemen who had witnessed
| the transaction informed a police officer
and the defendant was arrested, and be
and Grant taken to the station house The
defendant repeated to the officer what he
had said to Mr.. Barlow, that Grant was his
| friend; that they had worked on steam
| boats together; that Grant was very drunk,
and that he took the money to keep it, and
| that he did not intend to steal it.
The testimony shows, however, that
when the defendant was confronted with
Grant on the next morning after bis arrest,
and when Grant was sober, Grant said that
| he had never seen the defendant before !;
and the defendant then confessed that he
had never before been acquainted with
| Grant that he had met him that morning
a short time before the robbery, at the La
| fayette saloon, and went over to the corner
of Fourth and L streets, where the robbery
| took place. There was nothing in the tes-
| timony which indicated that any relations
of particular intimacy existed between the
| two men.
The testimony of the citizens who wit
messed the robbery, and the arresting Of
| ficer, show that the defendant was sober at
| the time of the robbery. The arresting
officer testified that when the defendant
was brought to the police station he feigned
\ drunkenness.
| when the defendant was arraigned in
the Police Court on his examination he
confessed the robbing and was held to
answer before this Court. When he was
arraigned in this Court he rendered q plea
/ IS 1tx, - L l.
| circumstances OF the case. He then stated
that Grant and himself had been friends,
| that they had been working together, and
| that upon the occasion of his taking the
money Grant was very drunk and that
| he took the money with the intention of
securing it for Grant, to return it TO him
| when Grant became sober: and that he did
| not intend to steal it.
| 1.-The Court then asked him if he himself
was drunk at the time. He said that be
was not The Court said if that would be
| the proof in the case he would not receive
the defendants plea of guilty, and directed
that plea of not guilty be entered, SO that
a jury might pass upon the question of his
guilt. The Court appointed counsel to de-
tend him, and jury was impapeled.
The case was tried, and on the trial Green
| offered himself as witness and testified
| that he had never met Grant until the
morning of the robbery; that he was so
drunk that he did not know whether he
took the money from Grant or not; that
he could not remember anything about it
that he was oblivious from intoxication.
This statement, made under oath at the
trial. was entirely inconsistent with that
which he had made at the time he was
arraigned and his plea was entered, and
it was inconsistent with all the testimony
of the disinterested witnesses. The infer
ence is, from all the evidence, that he
| added perjury to the crime of robbery, and
indicates most conclusively that he be-
longs to the criminal class, and the Court
| is satisfied that the sentence is not too
| severe.
"a Judge who carefully listens to the
testimony given in criminal case, charged
with the responsibility of passing upon the
liberty of man and the preservation of
| the good order of society, upon whom this
important responsibility rests, is in a bet
ter position to understand where leniency
should be shown and where punishment
should be imposed, than the editor of a
| newspaper who sits in an Office and ex-
presses his opinion on a question of inn
portance without any personal knowledge
of the facts"
| A Serious Runaway.
Yesterday afternoon the team attached