The record-union., 1892-02-15
CONCERNING PARDOES.
Many Men Who Are Anxious to Get
Out of Prison..
Governor Markham Submits Two
Lists to the Prison Directors
for Examination.

nave been forwarded to the Board OF
Prison Directors by the Governor, and
are awaiting action:
Daniel Mahoney-manslaughte seven
years, 1888. The applicant claims that
deceased borrowed his pistol ana Wnile
examining the same the pistol was as
charged. resulting in the death OF the de
ceased and that he was in no way con-
nected with it. The testimony is IN
closed in full; also, a letter written 10
General Barnes, which is explanatory OF
she position the case occupied III my
mind when all the evidence was before
me. also. the reply of DR.. Hutchlns IN
7-esnonse thereto. / think the evidence
and papers raise sufficient doubt IN my
mind to justify me in submitting the
case.
Seneca A. Swalm-San Francisco,
grand larceny, seven years, september,
1889. This case was of such Well-knoWn
character. and the facts surrounding 1t
were so widely published in the daily
papers at the time, that l have no doubt
each member Of the board is more famll-
lar with the same than they could be
made by any statement OF mine. / trans
nit herewith, however, the papers III the
case, and would recommend the letter OF
January 18th, from the applicant, to be
read by the board in fall. [ have had
conversation with him, and more from
what he has stated to me than from any
additional evidence on file, l. have de-
cided to transmit his case to you for your
opinion.
murder in second degree, twelve years,
1886. The defendant was found guilty OF
killing his reputed half-brother, on ac-
count of dispute growing out OF busl-
ness transactions in which they were
partners. Judge Bell, who presided at
he trial, says he was impressed with the
belief that if applicant had been defended
Oy one with more experience IN deIenQ-
ing persons charged with crime, he would
nave been convicted of no graver ot1ense
sban manslaughter The District Attor-
ney also makes a similar statement. The
Judge says the trial terminated within
few days from the date ofthe killing, before
popular excitement had subsidized, and
5he fact that the deceased was a reputed
Aalf-brother prejudiced the defense. The
present Judge of Shasta County, Hon.
Edward Sweeney, prosecuted the case.
It seems to be well established by the
most reputable citizens OF the county that
she applicant, who had lived IN the
county eighteen years, was OF good char
lcter, quiet, peaceable and industrious,
While the deceased was of violent temper
and not of good reputation, ana IN The
habit of carrying deadly weapons. The
letters of Judges Bell and Sweeney being
short and succinct, would recommend
honorable
r. @. Shaw-Plumas, murder second
degree life, 1873. The deceased was a
partially demented or cranky person,
rs it is termed in the evidence, and was
being teased by this applicant, together
with brother and many others OF the
same rough element of a mining camp at
which the difficulty occurred. Ihey were
n the bar-room of hotel, and applicant
was on a spree. The testimony shows
Ghey were calling each other very hard
names and deceased threatened applicant
several times. 1t was proven that de
ceased had a stone in his right-hand
pocket and at one stage Of the proceed
sngs put his hand in his pocket as ii to
use the stone and strike applicant, when
shaw seized a heavy poker and struck
deceased over the head, crushing the
skull, from which he died almost in
stantly. There is evidence OF other rows
about the same time between these men,
this MANS brother and other parties.
There is no doubt of the killing and no
evidence of premeditation. ltseems that
ne was man of naturally good temper,
but the victim of surroundings and evil
associates, but / do not believe that at
any time he was dangerous man.
John Silva-San BenitO, grand larceny,
hree counts, twenty five years, June, 1885.
The Superior Judge Of the county says
I he facts of said charge are the taking of
Bevaral horses belonging to three differ
ent ke-rsons, and three informatiOns were
Iilea against him, charging these ot1enses;
that Silva did not understand or speak
the English language, was Portuguese,
was not advised of his rights in the mat
ter, and was induced to plead guilty to all
three charges, when In reality there was
but one committed by him. He was i'm
prisoned for ten years each on two OF the
charges and five years on the other, MAX
ing twenty five years in all, and II he had
r1ArOn Y l.
lnum penalty would have been ten years,
which. with credits, would now have eX-
Dired These facts were certified to by
d. Z. Brun, Superior Judge, many prom
jnent citizens ofthe county, the President
Of the bank from whom the property was
stolen, and also certified by the present
District Attorney, who says he was pres
ent in court at the trial, was aware of all
the circumstances, and therefore recon-
mends favorable action. There is no
doubt of the commission of the crime,
and consideration need therefore only be
given to the points first enumerated.
2. E. Mullen-San Francisco, murder
second degree, fifteen years, 1887. This
case is submitted after talk with the
prisoner, with whose manner and story I
was somewhat impressed. He claims
that his house was forcibly entered
through the window by a sewing-ma-
chine agent; his wife screamed for help;
lie ran to her assistance, and, in the ex-
element of the moment, committed the
crime with putty-knife. Judge Toohy,
in passing sentence, stated that the Dris-
oner before the killing had borne spot
less reputation for sobriety and integrity:
1 hat deceased did wrong In entering the
house; that Mullen had right to expel
him from the premises, but should not
lave used unnecessary force; that the
court was inclined TO mercy because of the
risoner's family and small children,
and that the deed was done in defense of
lis home and family. The petition is
signed by Hon. J. \. E. Wilson, the Dis
trict Attorney, who prosecuted the case.
There is a protest on file from the mother
Cf deceased, characterizing the crime as an
Unprovoked, uncalled for and brutal muir
[ er. The case is one that calls for your
most careful and thorough investigation,
and without expressing any opinion
whatever, 1t is left in your hands for that
purpose.
John c. Henley-Humboldt, murder,
life, 1876. AT the earnest solicitation of
the Hon. j. +. DeHaven, Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court, this case is
lesubmitted, having in the year 1886 been
submitted and favorable action denied.
r'he murder was the result of saloon
low over cards, in which deceased was
the aggressor and struck applicant with a
Cribbage board. They then clinched,
snd Henley struck deceased a great many
llows with a knife. Hon. George A.
Knight, District Attorney, who prose
Cuted the man, certifies that popular
feeling and prejudice had much to do
Nth the conviction, and that man
Slaughter should have been the verdict
Judge Haynes, who presided in the case,
oertities that the verdict was harsh one.
Ills version of it is that deceased, at a game
cf cards, became angry, threw off his coat
and told Henley he could lick him, as
saulted him and struck him with a
Iaetallic cribbage board, Henley being in