The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-06-23
mo SENTENCE TODAY
The Race Track Cases Certi-
fled to the Supreme
Court.
JUDGES EVENLY DIVIDED
Lippincott and Hoffman for Im-
prisonment; Hudspeth and
Kenny for a Fine.

The fact that this morning was set down
for imposing of sentence upon the Gutten-
berg ''Big Four" caused large crowd of
politicians, lawyers and race track men to
assemble in the Court House.
Early in the present week a conference of
the four judges was held, but no understands
ing\was reached. Tt leaked out that they
were evenly divided. Another long confer
euce was held this morning, and it was
twenty minutes past eleven before the
ju dyes took their seats on the bench.
Judge Lippincott instructed the clerk to
call the defendants. AS their names were
called, Dennis Mclaughlin, John C. Carr,
John NJ. Crussius and Gottfried Walbaum,
stood by the clerks desk and listened atten-
| lively to Judge Lippincott, who spoke as fol-
| lows:-
AN IMPORTANT CASE.
GAN of us have considered this case
whether properly so or not-as one one OF
| a great deal of Importance The Court IS
| not now going to say one word IN detail in
| relation to the offenses with which the de-
! PENDANTS are charged, as all the facts In the
! case are as well known to the pubic as tnsy
| are to the Court. The Court regrets that its
/ members have been unable to agree upon a
| sentence.
During the discussion of this matter be-
| tween the judges. suggestions have arisen IN
| their minds which have been discussed to a
| certain extent in other quarters. These sug-
| gestions involve question Of law as to the
| effect of one of the statutes OF lS93-rhe
! last one Of the three statutes enacted by the
| Legislature of S93-upon the power OF the
| Court to impose a greater penalty than that
provided by that statute, which IS SO and
| costs.
"But these defendants pleaded guilty to
| keeping a disorderly house. We feei-some
| of us at least-that there is an important
| question of law involved as to whether,
| when an offence is oblIterated, person can
! be punished under previous enactments
| which imposed greater penalties. There has
| been an equal division of the court on one
! question, and we have decided to send the
| matter to the Supreme Court.
ALL AGREED ON THE RULE.
EsThe court has thought it well to have
| this rule entered, and [ may say, paren-
| thetically, that the court has agreed upon
| this rule The court all agree, also, that
! there is no reason why this announcement
| should be postponed, as there is no chance of
| the court, as at present constituted, ever ar
| irving at decision"
Judge Lippincott then said that the indict-
ments with all proceedings would be re-
| moved to the Supreme Court by writ OF cer-
| tiorari and in furtherance of this order In
structed Prosecutor Winfield to formally
sign a writ of eertiorari within twenty days.
Prosecutor Winfield then said that he
would make formal application for the writ
on tuesday, July 3.
Allan L. McDermott, counsel for the men,
| asked whether the matter would come up at
this term of court or the next, and Judge
Lippincott replied that that was question
! for the Supreme Court to answer, and he
could not say when the case would be dis
posed of.
It is said that Judge Lippincott and Hoff.
man were in favor of imposing penalty OF
seven months imprisonment upon the men III
addition to fining them, but that this plan
was blocked by Judge HUdspeth and Kenny,
| who would consent to no greater punishment
than heavy fine.