The record-union., 1892-02-15


When sober. / have a statement of the
case from the proper authorities of the
county and do not think it one in which
am justified in interfering, as he was
man ofeXceedingly intem-
perate and dishonest habits.
p. Dutfer-Tulare, jail-breaking and
robbery, five and a half years, 1890.
There is no doubt that applicant was
justly found guilty by the jury of rob-
berry; that while in prison ne gave the
officers much trouble and finally sue
ceeded in breaking out Of jail by saving
the bars from the prison. Prisoners
statements are so at variance with those
furnished me by the county authorities
that there Is no reason for interference.
Indian Pike-Shasta County, murder
second degree, life, 1852. Applicant claims
to have been under the influence of a bad
man who piled him with whisky till he
was drunk and then induced him to COM
init the crime. Whether he was induced
to kill the man from any such influence
or not, 1t was most cruel and brutal muir
der, without provOcation on the part OF
deceased, and the statement shows that
Pike is unfit to be at large.
Edward Walker-San Bernardino,
arson, second degree, eight years, 1890.
Applicant, a gambler, lived with a lewd
woman in a house of prostitution and
treated her as his wife. They had the
property occupied by them well insured,
and there is no doubt IN my mind that
he poured oil on the same and set it afire.
One of the witnesses, by whom he en-
deavored to establish an alibi, afterward
pleaded guilty to forgery. When his
companion was on trial Walker was
taken from the prison to testify against
ms old companion. lie did all he could
to assist him in his defense and refused
TO testify when placed on the stand. l
believe, if released, he would lead a Grim
lnal life, as he has shown no signs Of re-
pentance since his incarceration.
Frank Leach and Thomas Sullivan
should be considered together. They
were sent from Kern County for assault
TO rob in 1891 for twelve and fourteen
years, respectively. They undoubtedly
committed the crime, and | have every
reason TO belieye from Information that
they are worthless and dangerous men,
and If released would be guilty Of SINH
lar crimes and would be a menace to any
community in which they might locate.
They present no reasons not Iatly con-
tradicted blythe facts.
Peter SaVage-Alariposa, murder first
degree, life, 1857. Applicant claims he
was fired upon by deceased and struck in
the arm, and III defense of his life seized
a club and struck the fatal blow. The
transcribed testimony was DESTROYED by
piicant's testimony al the trial was the
same as the statement given in his petit
ton. The jury were unanimous on first
ballot for murder in first degree, ten be-
ing III favor OF the death penalty and two
for imprisonment for life. The ten finally
Joined the two, and the verdict was con
sidered at the time by the people and au-
thorities of the county as a just one, and
as no new light is shed on the case do
not feel Justified in Interfering
Simon SulZberger - san Francisco,
grand larceny, SIX years, 1896. Applicant
is confirmed criminal of a very danger
Gus character. His own father, in rec
sponse TO inquiries, admitted that he had
given up all hope for him. and feared
bodily injury if Sulsberger were released.
The father has Compromised numerous
crimes and paid out large sums of money
heretofore To free applicant from the pen
atty OF his crimes. The punishment does
not seem excessive, and | decline to iuter-
fere with the sentence OF the court.
b, w. Richson-Tulare, murder second
degree, twenty-five years. Applicant had
stated that he had seen two children Of
deceased in the act of criminal inter-
course. This caused feud between ap-
plicant and deceased. find from sources
entirely conclusive to me that applicant
shot deceased when upon his own porch,
and when deceased was begging him not
to shoot him and was, III fact, endeavoring
to get away. Believing these statements
TO be true, although it may also be true
that applicant had been threatened, |
think the punishment not an unjust one.
Lewellyn. Miller-San Francisco, grand
larceny, ten years, 1887. In applicant S
long and rambling petition, the attorney
who defended him, the Judge who sent
enced him, and other officers are accused
of wrong-doing toward applicant, and
hn 1,
case We're at the behest ola broker. who
promised TO have a light sentence i'm
posed Tor certain amount of money.
The record shows that the poStpOnementS
were, possibly, all at the request of de-
1endants attorney with view of making
motions for new trial, gaining time for
filing bills of exceptions, etc. I believe
the sentence was just and the statements
of prisoner, being so much at variance
with the facts in the case, give additional
weight to the idea that the punishment is
not severe.
Thomas Meyers-San Mateo, man
slaughter, eight years, 1890. Defendant,
with other persons confined in the Jail at
Redwood City, endeavored TO escape, and
in doing SO, assaulted the jailor, named
ToQman. During the trouble Tollman's
arm was broken and he was otherwise
severely hurt, from the effects of which
ne died four days later. Applicant, prior
to that time, was known to be OF vicious
character. Under the circumstances /
think the punishment not severe and the
application is denied.
John McNulty Comfy, burg
larry, first degree, five years, 1889. Ap-
pllcant claims the evidence was INSULT
-cient to convict him of the crime, and
really presents no other reason for a par
don. In conformity with my practice in
these matters l do not think it wise to ex-
'ercise the pardening power upon this
ground alone.
Oscar Rosenberg Alameda, burglary,
three years, 1889. \ o reasons alleged ex-
cept that he will leave the State never to
return, and also that the Judge who con-
vlcted him was illegally, elected, neither
of which deserves consideration as basis
of pardon.
John Baren-San Francisco, bigamy,
two years, April, 1891. Applicant claims
he was insane at the time ofthe marriage,
never signed the marriage contract and
never treated the woman as his wife.
There is no proof that he was insane,
although there is evidence that he was
patient at the Napa Asylum some years
before, and after he was found guilty he
was again confined in theasylum. From
the evidence in the case furnished by the
prosecuting attorney l do not think the
allegations of the applicant are sustained
and therefore deny the pardon.
Antonio Perez-San Francisco, grand
larceny, nine years, 1889. Applicant was
found guilty OF assisting in robbery and
sale of the contents of a house valued at
81, 800. There is no doubt in my mind.
from applicants statement, that he was
guilty. have read the testimony in the
case, and see no reason why the case
should be referred to you for your con-
sideration.
Joseph Gloss-San Francisco, robbery,
twenty years, 1891. have been appealed
to by friends of this prisoner in very
plaintive terms to interfere in his case.
but, after reading the testimony, do not
feel justified in doing SO. The treatment