The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-12-12
The GOVERNORS REASON
For Saving the Neck Of David Dsncy, the
Negro Vile Murderer.
THE CRIME WAS A MOST BRUTAL ONE
nut the chief Executive Believes ii
Was Not OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
wanted n Divorce.

Austin. Texas, December 10.--Tne gov
ernor today commuied to life imprison-
nena the sentence OF Dave Dancy, wno was
to have been hung at Coaumbus on Dscem-
bcf Is. ,t.
sb5se OK Texas VS.. Dave Dancy, Cclogaaa
Il CouEsy. 5u
Execuut,e once, Austin, Texas, Deem
Der ~. 1S9s.--lhs dcfenlant, a neero, is
urder sentence OF dSath Tor the m.rdsr
OF his witS nn,l G.s coun5ei asks thas ,sle
Sentence be cC1nLial,ed 70 Imprisonment IN
the penlten.a9y rursAfc Tne ml.elia. f-k.ss
blieny aTc Jnal the deeenuant ana d.
ctastI had been married tnircy' years; nau
ecselal children, come OK thsm Oh age ali
mallLcd. ans had lived agrseab.y logesher
/ un,f. lew years PRIOR 10 the hoin.ciae.
| D-ll - -lf.etsa - a...tS
3sd treated his wife harshly II NOT cruelty.
IN.e cha. astsd OF d4fegl,l.,nt prior 10 t.s.s
tfcli.te Was GOO and he was liked by d.
pto.lo OF his neighDa. hooA ANA ceuIty.
Ginning homo Intoxicated few days bore
the killing he quar.'e.td wjh his VIE and
siDe reft the hol.e, gang TO The homs or u
ihi-Iitea ~ae8hsci, wnere shs r.dila ned
CONTINUALLY akh where she was killed.. ON
tho day OF Tho homictie del4n at, W
| previous arrangement, was 10 81 10 Co.
l luin1us with ono Amos Ward. Wal.irl Ward
reached abe house OF defendant and after
talking over the family trouble ne sug-
geSued to defendant who hal rot seen his
WIS since si,s lsfC the prem, es come days
btfo.e that ihey go to see her before go
lnS TO Columbus On reaching the house
| Where she was stopp ng she acI3 oshsrs
we.n eating bfcakiass aad defendiyni and
| Ward were asked 10 eat with them. This
was declined, but defendant SUI down az
the table ny the side of his wife and urged
her to Return to their homs and livJ VI III
MN she refused Giving as relsoi tha.
h6 HAD located ner badly and she was
afraid OF him, and stated that she wou.d
not live with HIM again. Defendant did
nal appear " BE- angry a. "a was sober De-
! ceased then left the room and went out
Side. In y few moments defendant followed
and soon an,erward deceased was hear To
s. taill afi III n tbs parties Ia tn house
reached her she was dead. She had been
killed out in the yard with heavy stick
by mashing and crushing the skull In a
brutal manner arl defendant was staining
over her. His knife, opened, was fouLd
near by oD the ground Ward test fled that
WHOM they were leaving the house OF d =
ferdart on the way to see deceased the de-
iehdafE was about to take his gun with
MN, but left ii Mt his suggestion. though
| d fe aat denied this under OATH Except
IRON the testimony of defendant nothing
Is known OF what passed between him eiasi
deceased after they left tho breakfast table,
| He TESTIFIED as TO this In effect that he en-
ut"NoiSu W Bts ueT 10 T0uurn nome ana
/ she, again REFUSED, stating that she had
engaged counsel to secure n divorce and
! would take the property and m nor chill
| drcn This, according to his test mony, 20
! shocked him that he does not know what
! occurred afterward, though he supposes he
kliae! her. 1t Is shown by other and undis-
puted testimony that deceased had In fact
consulted council who advised her that
she cowid obtain q divorce, recovsr al of
! inc properly AID have the custody OF the
minor children.
me enavl and enormity of the crime Is
'nahifsst and the sole question Is whether
the extrsme penalty should be inflicted.
The members OF the board of mar ION al
visers divi3ed in opinion. one believing
mat the sentence of death should be COM
mlutei TO lie Imprisonment and the other
mat 1t should be enforced. Commutat,o1
u The sentence Is voluntarily recommended
| by counsel who ASSISTED in tho prosscu-
| lion and Judge Kennon. who triel the case
District Attorniy Green. upon being asked
| rs opinion, joins In the re commentator
IA Dies Judge Mccormick. formerly dis
| tiict Judge OF that dist let. The sheriff.
| and many reputable and letdn:, citizens
.iso ask that the sentence be committed
The ground upon which the Communication
| s asked Is substantially that statei %,
Judge kenron. that thore is testimony
from which 1t may be inferred that de-
| ,p9liant acted not upon deliberately
formed design but upon "a rash. inoonsid-
| tlstte liuPulSt CtisHu Dy the statement
of his wife that she would NOT again live
| with him and would institute divorce pro-
ceedings. In my Judgment one important
| fact In the case, net roferrsd to specially
In the opinion of tho court OF criminal APP
penls. lends credence to this view. The
| testimony introduced by the State shows
| that II left to himself defendant would
| probably not have gone 10 t,r~ house where
| his wife was stopping. The witness Ward
testified that the arrangement was to go
| 10 Columbus and that he (Ward) suggested
| the visit to deceased. The Implication from
! tho testimony Is that this visit was one OF
reconciliation. 1t seems clear, thereto q, |
hat defendant did not suggest tlia oppor-
,unlty TO commit the murder. IL is true
| that after the suggestion was made he
| nay possibly have formed the design to
! XIII, but In view OF what has been said
| and the fact that on arriving at the house
! he underworld to persuade deceased to re-
| urn to their house; this Is not p'is5abl,, |
| ,ertainly not evident. Whether or not II Is |
| he NEST reasonable theory 1t seems 10 me
| there are circumstances ini.ssaing that che
| purpose to KIN was formed in the ward |
| that II wGs the result OF sudden impulse
| md lacked that malicious and cruel de-
| Iteration 70, whlcs the law demands the
| cath penalty. Upon consideration OF chs |
| and the recommendations referred to the |
| entence OF death In this case Is hereby |
committed to imprisonment for lirg in the |
| State pen.tentiarv and the sheriff 81 c 40
| ado county Is directed to execute tais or
| der. CA. Culberson.