The record-union., 1896-08-02
HE WEARS THE STRIPES NOW.
Callendine Sentenced to Folsom Prison
for Thirty Years.
Remarks of Judge Hinkson When Pre-
nouncing Sentence on Him
Yesterday.

"Callendine, stand upi Have you
anything to say as a reason why the
Judgment of the law should not be pro-
nounced upon you?'
Such was the salutation of Judge
Hinkson yesterday morning to L. L.
Callendine, who sat, pale and down.
cast by his attorneys, his jaunty, de-
hant air all gone, as he realized that
he at last stood face to face with the
majesty of the law he had outraged
You We're informed against to the
Grand Jury by the District Attorney
and indicted for the crime of robbery,
to which charge you pleaded not guilty.
On your first trial the jury disagreed
and you were tried a second time, re-
sulting in your being found guilty.
What, if anything, have you to say
Why sentence should not now be pro-
nounced upon you?'
The crowd that had pressed into the
courtroom and filled every available
inch of space in order to hear sentence
pronounced, craned their necks to get
better view of the figure that, sur
mounted by pale and downcaSt face,
stood up at the Judges beheSt, while
those who had been unable to obtain
admission to the courtroom, but had
been able to secure positions on the
stairs leading to the upper story, from
which they could look into the court
room through the transom, were the
envy of those who crowded the hall
below and could neither see nor hear.
They kindly furnished their less for
tunate comrades, however, with what
little information they could CLEAN,
Which was not much.
After Judge Hinkson paused, H. L.
Buckley, of counsel for Callendine,
arose and stated to the court that, be-
fcre sentence was pronounced, he
wished to make a motion for a new
trial. He would not argue the point
now and made the motion in order to
preserve the rights Of the prisoner He
wished, however, to call the attention
OF the court to what he considered as
some errors in his rulings in regard to
testimony. One was in regard to the
admission of the testimony OF Carroll,
IN relation to the finding of the bar at
Callendine's house and its subsequent
disposal.
Judge Hinkson replied:
On that point 1 viii say that I had
no doubt at the time that I was right
in admitting the evidence and could see
10 reason why should have excluded
II Since the trial, however, l have
submitted the point to one of my col
leagues on the bench and he said that
there was no question but that 1 was
clearly correct in my position. Through
out the trial l took special pains to
commit no error, in order that there
should be no grounds for reviewing
the case, and am satisfied that my rul-
ings We're correct
j. c. March, also an attorney for the
defense, said that he thought it his
duty to say a few words and to present
some facts that might possibly have
escaped the memory OF the court The
defendant had. up to the time of this
trial, borne a good reputation, as evil
denced by the testimony adduced in
his favor, both in this community and
in those in which he had previously
lived. He had never before been con-
victed of any crime and this should
tend to mitigate his sentence
Counsel appointed to defend him had
had SO brief a time before the trial to
prepare for it that, although they felt
they had done their duty fully they had
not been able to prepare as good a de-
fense as they wished. He felt that he
should say this much toward the miti-
CATION of the sentence
District Attorney Ryan said he was
willing everything should be said in
favor of the defendant that could be,
but when it came to the question of
character he could not agree with coun-
sci. The witnesses, both from Colusa
and here, timost all of them testified to
his bad character. What was worst of
all. and for which he must hold the de-
fendant chargeable, rank perjury had
been committed in attempting to prove
an ahbi- One witness who testified to
an alibi on the first trial had since con-
fessed that he did not know where CAL
lendine was on the night Of the robbery.
and acknowledged that he had commit
ted perjury in teStifying as he did, and
that defendant induced him to do so.
He himself was satisfied that defend
ant had induced others to do likewise.
and in addition to the crime of robbery
had placed perjury on top of it. 1t
would have been far better for him to
have acknowledged his crime at first
and to have asked for 1eniency instead
Of pifing perjury on robbery and put
ting the county to the expense of two
trials. 1t seemed to him that the de-
fendant was entitled to very little con-
sideration at the hands of the court
Judge Hinkson said that in detergnin-
ing what punishment should be meted
out to defendant for the crime Of which
he had been convicted, he had tried to
divest himeslf of all prejudice and to
determine fairly what penalty should be
imposed upon him.
Il was surprised" said ne, "at the ac-
tion of the first jury and their failure
TO find verdict. The evidence was so
strong that / do not see on what point
a reasonable doubt could be held I
do not mean to. crticise the jury, but T
do not see how they could have doubt
of your guilt On your second trial the
evidence was much stronger. and there
was no question of your guilt You had
two fair trials. After the first trial
your attorney withdrew. and / realized
that, as the District Attorney had al
ready conducted one trial against you.
ne would have an advantage over new
counsel. and l therefore appointed two
to defend you. You have been ably rep
resented in both the trials.
Il can see very little that appeals to
enercy in your case, but very much that
aggravates it. You have been guilty.
not only of robbery. but of perjury and
subornation of perjury in others, and
have placed them in danger OF occupy
ing the same position as you do. The
fact of being a young man sometimes
weighs in favor of a defendant, but it
Il. moi in