The McCook tribune. (McCook, Neb.) 1886-1936, 1897-07-09
BARTLEY'S SENTENC
TWENTY YEARS IN PRISON AT
HARD LABOR.
Sentence Lacks but One Year of Being
the Maximum-Fine is Also Imposed
Double the Amount of the Em-
bezzlement-Appeal to tho
Supreme Court.
He Gets Twenty Years.

Omaha dispatch: Ex-State Treas
urer j. S. Bartley was sentenced by
Judge Baker to twenty years in the
penitentiary at hard labor and to pay
a fine of S303, ,76S.9O, or double the
amount of his embezzlement
The sentence was passed after the
court had overruled Bartleys motion
for a new trial, and only after every
step was taken by the defense on
which it could raise questions for SUBJ
mission, not only to the supreme court
of the state, but on which the case
could be carried into the United States
courts to the supreme courts of the
United States-this latter object be-
ing accomplished by the claim of the
defense that the imposition of fine in
addition to the imprisonment denies
BARLEY right guaranteed to him by
the United States constitution.
To what particular section of the
constitution the defense refers is not
disclosed, and Bartley's : .aeys
when asked failed to E.;.Ac any
answer.
BARLEY was returned to the jail to
await the action of the supreme court
on an application for a suspension of
sentence and leave to give bail. Later
in the day the supreme court suspend
ed sentence and fixed the bail bond at
$125, 900, and when such bond is
given BARLEY will be released from
Jail.
When district court convened Attor-
ney Mahoney filed a motion asking to
be allowed to call Capt. p. II. Mostyn,
chief of the Mostyn detective agency,
for oral examination in support of
the motion for new trial. In sup
port of this motion Mr.. Mahoney filed
his own affidavit to the effect that he
had asked Capt. Mostyn to make affi-
davit that his agency had been en-
ployed to furnish detectives to watch
the BARLEY jury and had furnished
such detectives. The affidavit of Mr.
Mahoney stated that Mostyn had re-
fused to make any affidavit in the
matter.
County Attorney Baldrige objected
to the Introduction of oral testimony
in support of motion for new trial
and also objected to calling Mostyn to
the witness stand for the reason that
he had been exempted by the statutes
t.rOm disclosing the business of his
Client.
4 Judge Baker said he did not see how
fhe employment of detectives or addi-
ional bailiffs could affect the Jury in
any way. He said he had instructed
the jury to inform the court if there
was any complaint to be made, and if
they had been intimidated in any way
by these additional bailiffs or detect
ives, they would undoubtedly have in
vormed the court to that effect. The
motion was, therefore, overruled.
. Counsel for defense offered a number
Rf other motions but they were all
bverruled.
Judge Baker then asked if there was
any reason why sentence should not be
passed upon the defendant. The de-
'.ense made no reply and the county
attorney remarked that there could be
no more appropriate time.
The defendant was ordered to stand
before the court and the court asked
him if he had anything to say why
sentence should not be passed upon
him.
In clear voice BARLEY replied: Not
at this time
The court then entered in the dock
ct the sentence, which he afterward
read in these words:
"lt is the sentence of this court that
you be confined in the penitentiary of
this state at hard labor for the period
OF twenty years and pay fine of S3O3.-
76S. 90.