The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-12-29
HIS SECOND CONVICTION.
Fitzgerald Goes to Deer Lodge for
One Year at Hard
Labor.
The Court Censures the Sergeant
Of Police While Passing
Sentence.
Sixty Thousnnd Dollars Apportioned for
Lewis and Clarke County School Pur-
poses for Next Year.

Judge Hunt sentenced Brian Fitzgerald
yesterday to serve one year at Deer Lodge.
The judge told him that he was chaI ged
with an assault with intent to commit rob-
berry and was granted u new trial under tho
form OF law, and that ho was found guilty.
Have you anything to say why judgment
should not be pronounced against your"
asked tho court. Fitzgerald replied: II
can only say. your homer, that ! Gm not
guilty of this orims. I am innocent"
Judge Hunt then said: II believe the YER
dict was right. There Ia no doubt whatever
that Laurimore was assaulted in an at
tempted robbery; there 10 no doubt what
ever that you were there; there Ia no doubt
whatever that your conduct showed that
you knew there was going to be an attempt
TO commit a robbery. The testimony OF
the officers, go far as your arrest was con-
csIned, could not be doubted. and upon
that naked testimony. together with Lsuri-
more's, coupled with your own statements
on the witness stand. there was 40 escape
from the reasonable conclusion that you
were guilty. But, sitting as q judge of
the court, l would be recreaHt to Q judicial
duty il / did not say that from the evidence
before the court. the methods, the manne
used. which led to your apprehension and
conviction, are ~seRndalous aud reprehensl-
BILE. 1t is a disgracs to think that a super
ior officer, q sergaant of the police of a
community like this. ia engaged in the
business Of leading men into crime. rather
than trying to keep them out of it. 1ke
opportunities and the temptations are
great enough without the officers of the law
employing men, whose affiliations arc with
criminals. to drag others into the commis
sion of otime. The verdict was not an ex-
onsration of the police department. az /
regard it.. The jury could not
escape tho conclusion of your guilt. but
if it had depended upon the statements
of Callahan alone, as against the statements
of Barrett, alone, n the testimony of one
had been put into the scales of justice and
weighed, as against the testimony of the
other, / would doubt whether the jury
would have given any moe credibility to
Callahan than to Barrett. The whole affair
is disgraceful. 1t should be a aouros of
pride to the marshal Of the city to know
J that throughout this entire case, from be-
| ginning to end, his name did not appear,
and / must believe he was innocent of amy
part in this Gull able transaction, but vow
are none the less guilty youtself. The law
does not demand q very severe sentence in
consideration Of all these facts. The fret
jury imposed your sentence at one year.
On the grounds set forth In Earrett's atfl-
davit. the court granted you a new trial. II
is satisfactory, at least, to the court. that
there has been no risk of the CON
victioR of an innocent man. You
have had a new trial. You were
defended with unusual ability; seldom have
! listened to q better argument in our court,
than hat made to the jury by your counsel.
You were vigorously but fairly prosecuted.
Tho jury was as good as ever sat in court,
and the evidence Was conclusive. No mat
ter what disgrace attached to others, how.
ever, none the less attaches to you. The
sentence of the court is that you be confined
to hard labor for enc year from to-day.