The record-union., 1892-02-15

FRANK HOWARD, San francisco, assault
70 commit robbery, four years, 1880.
mere is no doubt in my mind of the guilt
OF the applicant, and he does not in his
petition give any reasons for pardon, ex
cept that he was drunk at the time he
committed the crime and did not succeed
I'D the robbery, neither of which reasons
are Suthclent justification for me to in
/ fere with the sentence of the court, which
L deem not excessive.
! Il. Z. Cuff and y. G. Stultzman-San
Luis Obispo, robbery, fifteen years, 1889.
/ a very estimable lady has interested her
! self III behalf of these prisoners on ac-
/ count of their age. l have made inyeSti-
cation of the case, and from my conclu-
slons they Were found guilty of stage
/ robbery. 1t is the opinion of one of the
( county authorities, upon whose judg-
ment L can rely, that the interest excited
/ IN the mind of the lady referred to is
misplaced, and that they should not be
released.
/ Y. Mandueo-Merced, attempt to COM
init rape, ten years, 1887. Petitioner
/ claims that he did not understand the
/ English language and the nature of the
| charge against him, and alleges his inuo-
! cence and that the sentence is excessive
and unjust. From a history of the case,
do not think any of his assertions can
! be substantiated, and do not think the
punishment he received is sufficient for
the crime proven against him.
john McCarthy-San Francisco, muir
der in the first degree, life, 1876. The
murder was most atrociouS one, the de-
ceased being stabbed to death with pair
OF shears. There is no doubt of the guilt
OF applicant. The only reason assigned
is that OF drunkenness, which cannot
/ entertain.
II. e. BroWn-Sonoma. murder first
degree, life, 1882. Applicant and four
others were indicted tor the murder of
/ rin in
and found guilty in Sonoma County OF
! murder in the first degree and sentenced
TO be hung, sentence atterward commuted
! to imprisonment for life. The theory OF
! the prosecution is that these parties had
! gone into Mendocino County. A posse
! was organized while they were encamped
! III the mountains and went to their camp
1 to arrest them. A battle enSued. Two of
! the posse were killed, one by the officers
! making the arrest. One of the parties
/ turned States evidenceand was pardoned
/ by GoVernor Perkins: hone committed
suicide; one was sentenced to life impris-
! oninent and was pardoned by Governor
! Watermon. Notwithstanding the pardon
| OF one OF them by Governor Waterman,
/ am constrained from a careful inveSti-
! CATION made more thorough on account
OF the pardon, and am Of the opinion that
Brown is guilty and should not receive
/ Executive clemency.
! W Ong All Teak-San Francisco, muir
der, life, commuted by Governor Water
I.man, to tWenty years, September, 1888.
There is no allegation in the petition that
requires consideration. except that OF
! newly discovered evidence. | have read
/ the evidence taken at the trial and believe
the Jury We're justified in finding him
! guilty, and do not think | am justified in
/ further lessening the punishment OF prs-
oner.
William Sheppard San Francisco. rob
berry, ten years, 1890. The crime con-
sisted in torcibly taking an oil coat from
shows that while doing so applicant
knocked him down and beat him Sc
yerely. The petition says applicant
thought the coat belonged to his brother:
he believed it had been stolen and was
endeavoring to get it for him. There is
nothing to substantiate his claim and /
therefore decline to Interfere.
George hington-Tehama, murder
first degree, life, 1885. A thorough in
vestigation of this case shows that the
jury stood eleven in favor Of hanging
Washington's lawyer informed him that
he stood chance, ii the case were ap-
peaIed to the SupfeF9fe Court of having il
reversed, but applicant refused, saying
he had saved his neck and would not
take chances with another Jury 1t was
considered by Washngton's attorney
and others very wise decision Under
the circumstances, and especially as the
petition contains no new evidence, l de-
cline to interfere.
4. w. Iaylor-9o olo, murder, first de-
gree; life, 1850. Applicant was found
guilty OF poisoning the husband of a
woman, with Whonf he was criminally
intimate. L have read a carefully pre-
pared statement from reliable sources
and believe the jury was justified in find
ing him guilty, and therefore decline to
interfere.
John McLean-Nevada,m manslaughter.
seven years, 1889. / have based my CON
cluSlon upon statement of the case and
outline OF the evidence, furnished by the
District Attorney and signed bv the
Jurors at the request Of applicant The
testimony makes it clear to nv mind that
the murder was brutal one. deceased
being kicked to death in row for which
this applicant and his crowd were entire
ly responsible, and which deceased en-
deavored to avoid. Under the circum-
stances, | do not consider the punishment
excessive.
Milton McGee-Butte, burglary, EIGHTY
years, 1886. This case was called to NV
attention by the Warden at Folsom as
being an excessive sentence for the crime
! alleged. / have made very careful in
qulry, and believe, the man to have been
| q desperate, who terrorized for some
tune the community in which he lived
and was engaged in many very serious
crimes. There IS! no doubt in the minds
of the people of the community that he
was at the headoof a very dangerous gang
with. which the town had been infested
Ihere IS on file protest signed by all
the leading citizens and officers of the
county, which is evidence sufficient to
| my mind that l should not interfere.
knowing, as | we'll do, that these persons
would not put their names to a petition of
this kind were they not honest in their
belief OF fear Of applicant should he be re-
leased.
b. j. Davis-San Francisco. man.
slaughter, ten years, 1890. Applicant
was found guilty Of manslaughter in the
murder of his wife. The evidence is
| quite voluminous, and I herewith incIose
the same, From careful reading of it,
do not feel justified in interfering with
! the sentence OF the court. There is some
little conflict in the evidence favorable to
! the applicant, but it seems to me there
can be no doubt of the business of the
sentence, if guilty, and [ see no reason
why the jury were not justified in arriy-
ing at their conclusion
John Williams-Nevada,m murder. life.
1852. The friends of this man have made
application personally and by letter for
| his pardon. They have been informed
| that the prisoners record while in prison
has been good, but upon a report show
| ing that it has been very bad, | do not
deem 1t worthy of further Investigation.
and therefore nave. notified them of this
| determination.
Patrick Brick-Colusa, murder in the
first degree, 1889. Defendant was found
guilty of murder in the first degree, but
the death sentence was reprieved by Gov
etnor Stoneman to imprisonment for
life. have gone over the case at the re-.
quest of some OF his many friends, but
am not satisfied that there is enough pre-
sented in it to justify me in submitting