The San Francisco call., 1897-03-21
, would be ten years. II each of the four priors

would be ten years. III each of the four priors
charged were to be treated in the same man
ner forty years Imprisonment would be
the minin um for the crime.
On your trial you deliberately committed
perjury in denying your signature to the docu-
ment introduced in evidence, in swearing that
you saw Morrow and Nikirk sign certain
papers and in other matters for which, If you
were tried. the lowest punishment possible, in
view OF your prlor convictions, would be four
teen years imprisonment. And, not content
with adding such crime to the list, OF which
you have been guilty, you offered in evidence
and uttered two forged papers in support of
your false testimony. the uttering of each of
which would subject you, with your prior
record, o a minimum Imprisonment OF fifteen
years or thirty years for the two.
Were you TO be tried for the several crimes
just enumerated, which you have committed
right here in the presence OF the court in de-
lending yourself upon the charge OF which
You have been convicted, your punishment, in
connection with the punishment imposed for
this crime. taking the min imum for each,
could not be less than ten years for this crime,
fourteen years for perjury and thirty years for
two forgcries, making an aggregate OF nifty
four years.
In addition to these facts in aggravation of
your offense, the evidence adduced here shows
that the complaining witness here was the
third victim from the country whom you had
fleeced within period Of about four months,
no charges having been made against you by
the other two. Had those crimes been added
to the list, twenty years additional i'm prison
ment, taking the minimum allowed by law
would also be added, making seventy-four
years IN ALL
Judge Cook also referred to the brazen
perjury committed by the defendant and
said that it was the intention of the court
to deter such perjury if possible by in
creasing the punishment of all convicted
persons who had the temerity TO swear
falsely, even though testifying in their
own behalf. In this regard he said:
When one has lived life of crime, as you
have, such an example should be set as snail
show others that their presence in the COM
munity will he dispensed with should they
follow in a like path Likewise is i. necessary
that others should learn that if they, in de-
tending themselves on accusations, or in en-
deavoring to maintain accusations, in this
court commit willful perjury, as you have,
they cannot do SO and go unwhipped of JUS
tica, for, as have heretofore stated, where q
witness testifies to what am satisfied is false
| shall regardless OF who ne may be, officer or
CITIZEN send him for trial for his crime, and
when defendant attempts to avoid convic-
tion by such means l shall increase his pun
ishmeut in such way as to deter others from
following his example.
The evidence also shows that the business
in which you were engaged was one which,
although not declared by law to be criminal,
is one wherein the unwary nre f1eeced of their
money aud is business which Is disgrace to
the community and which ought TO be de-
clared criminal even ii it is not.
During the giving of your own testim ony
you brazeny stated that, in your business,
you had .'worked the City by sections and
that the disreputable character Of that bust
ness was such that even you were ashamed to
conduct the same under your own name, for
you say that at one place you conducted busi-
ness under the style of the English Remedies
Company" out that there was no company
that you ran the same yourself" thereby ad-
mitting that you even conducted your busi-
ness under false pretense.
1t is certain that at your age you could not
live to serve the full term that your crimes
call for, and although l could send you in
terms for life imprisonment. such penalty is
one which deem proper TO reserve ior crimes
OF {. character different than that for which
you have been tried. But l will fix such an
imprisonment as shall, at your age, virtually
snail be sufficient TO operate an example
and warning to others not to follow in your
footsteps.
In conclusion Judge Cook referred to the