Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-01-03
GARRETT'S SENTENCE.

GARRETT'S SENTENCE.
He Gets the Full Extent of the
Law.
Yesterday Captain F. M. Garrett, con-
victed by jury for the crime of incest
committed on his natural daughter
Malta, now Mrs. Edgcomb, came
before Judge Lucien Shaw for SEN
tence. The jury which found
him guilty did go with a recon-.
mendation to the Court to deal merci
fully with the culprit. Much speculation
has been INDUCED in by the public since
Friday as to what the sentence would
bs.
When the case was called yesterday,
w. i. Williams, for the prisoner. moved
to have new trial granted. Williams
made q short argument on law points,
and then Major Horace Bell followed
with long argument to the Court on
the same proposition. Assistant District
Attorney McComas asked the Court if ii
desired to hear any argument in reply
to that advanced by the attorneys for
the defense. The Judge replied that he
did not, and proceeded to express his
views as follows
The Court think good portion of
the argument which counsel have made
upon this occasion would have been
more appropriate upon motion for q
new trial. The questions as to the
| suf1iciency OF the evidence are not proper
subjects for consideration upon plea to
the Court. There is no doubt that there
has been good deal of public clamor in
hi 10 xryt, rnt, Ii Il
the defendant, but l don't think that
that had any effect on the trial of the
case, and 1 am very clear that SO far as
the action of the Court was concerned,
it was as favorable to the de,
fendant as he ought to have
asked, and certainly as favor
able as the law would allow, go far as 1
know; and If the public clamor had any
effect at all, it tended to make the Court
more lenient towards him than it other
thev were cautioned against reading any
newspapers or allowing anybody to talk
in their presence about the case, and I
am pretty sure that they have obeyed the
instructions of the Court, and, therefore,
they have been excluded entirely from
any influence of public clamor. There
during the trial, but l do not remember
ever seeing any demonstrations from
them which would indicate preference
one way or the other. So I think the
verdict must have been the result of
consideration of the evidence in the case,
uninfuenced by outside pressure of any
sort. AS to whether the recommended
ton OF the jury was caused by reason
able doubt in their minds, l cannot say,
but think it could not have been
for that reason. They were fairly
and thoroughly instructed as to
their duty in the case, and repeatedly in
structed that if they had any reasonable
defendant they should render verdict
acquittiug him, not to recommend him to
mercy. The jury naTe but one duty to
perform Ia the trial OF the case, and chat
is to render the verdict, either finding
the defendant guilty or not guilty. 1t is
no part Of their province to recommend
the defendant to the mercy of the Court.
They do not have the task Of fixing the
amount of punishment. The Court
listens to the evidence, and in fixing the
sentence it is the duty OF the Court to
consider the evidence 80 far as it tends to
show the nature of the crime, the cir
cumstances under which it was commit
ted, and all that, with the view
to determine the amount OF pun.
ishment which ought to be inflicted.
do not think it is the province of the
jury to say anything about the circum-
stances in their verdict. The only effect
which q Recommendation of this sort
would have would simply be the opinion
of twelve men who heard the evidence
as to the merits of the case and as to the
severity of the punishment. But the
Court, in passing sentence, must as
sumo that the defendant is guilty. He
passes sentence, not upon an innocent
man, not upon a man of whose guilt
there is reasonable doubt
At this point the Court was inter.
,rupted by Mr.. Williams, who stated that
the defendant preferred to be incarcer-
ated at San Quentin rather than Folsom,
on account of the heat at Folsom during
the summer.
The Court (continuing)-b under the
decisions of our Supreme Court, under
the law, man is guilty 80 far as the
sentence is concerned beyond question.
Mr.. Garrett, you stand up.
The defendant-May I say word,
your honor? Just one word only.
TIE Court-Well, what ia it?
The defendant-As the matter has
been brought up, desire to thank the
Court for it's unbiased and impartial rul-
ings during the long and tedious trial.
That is my opinion.
The Court-You have had, Mr.. Gar
ratt, fair and impartial trial go far as
the Court knows, and certainly that was
the intention of the Court, and / believe
the intention of the jury. There has
been patient investigation of the case,
and the verdict has been rendered as
stated, finding you guilty. There has
been recommendation for mercy. 1t
is somewhat difficult for the Court to see
upon what the recommendation is based.
The victim, or the accomplice of your
crime, might be recommended to mercy
upon the ground that, at the beginning,
at least, she was 80 young as to be prob
ably unconscious or ignorant of the ma
ture of the act. An ordinary seducer
might plead in extenuation that he was
influenced by his youthful passions, and
that probably he IN good faith really in
tended to perform the marriage which
would cure the wrong committed. Even
brother or sister who might commit
| the act of which you are convicted
might plead that they were young and
did not know, did not fully
realize the nature or the act.
rGvar{r prhn has hnon