The record-union., 1899-08-05
FORTY YEARS FOR HARLAN.
HE WILL HAVE TO SPEND THEM
AT SAN QUENTIN.
Attorney Henley Strives to Procure
New Trial for His
Client.

yesterday was the day set for the
sentencing of Charles Harlan, con-
Vlcted of criminal assault on hfteen-
year-old girl named Rita Martin. Inc
case has been prosecuted from the pc
ginning with the active assistance or
the Society for the Prevention of Cru
city to Children.
William Henley, the defendant S
counsel, made a hard fight for his CHI
ent, and presented strong and care
fully prepared argument in support OF
MS motion for a new trial, but Judge
Hughes could not be persuaded 10
adopt his view of the question.
The grounds on which he asked for
new trial were: That the court mis-
directed the jury in matters OF law
during the trial; that the court erred
in decision of questions of law arls-
ing during the trial; that the verdict
was contrary to the law and evidence
misconduct on the part of the District
Attorney during the trial; that the
court did not have jurisdiction to try
the cause.
He also asked for further time in
which to prepare his motion, as ne
had worked diligently on it, but there
are over 100 cases bearing on similar
cases Judge Hughes thought he had
had ample time to prepare the mo-
ton, and denied the request for a
postponement.
Attorney Henley then attacked the
age of consent law, under which Har-
Ian was convicted, on the ground that
it was not legally passed, and that
the previous law, making the age of
consent IA years, was now in force.
He introduced the journals of the
Senate and Assembly for 1897, when
the law was passed, and also the His
tory of Bills, to prove that Assembly
bill No 16, the law in question, was
amended in the Senate after passing
the Assembly and was sent to Gov
ernor Budd, who asked the House TO
pass concurrent resolution recalling
it, on the ground that the Assembly
had not cOncurred in the Senate
amendments before sending it to him
for signature; that the concurrent res
olution was passed, the bill sent back
to the Assembly, the Senate amend
ments concurred in and the bill sent
rolled He argued that the Legis-
lature had no right to recall the bill,
and the Governor had no right to
send it back, and therefore it was not
legally passed The Governors duty,
he said was to have vetoed it. Only
three things are in the power of the
Governor when the bill is sent to him
first, to approve it; second, to veto or
reject it; third, to let it become law
at the expiration of ten days without
his signature. But he had no right
to send it back.
Judge Hughes asked if there was
any rule or statute requiring the Leg
islature to pass a concurrent resolu-
ton, as the Governor had suggested
Mr.. Henley said he had been unable
to find any, and that the Governor had
no authority to ask it, and the Leg1s-
lature to pass such resolution. If the
Act was defective, as the Governor
stated, it was his duty to veto it, and
then a new bill could have been intro
duced and passed in legal manner.
Judge Hughes asked if, as the rules
of the houses require action by one
house on amendments passed in the
other. the action of the Assembly in
sending the bill to the Governor was
a legal transmission.
Mr. Henley thought it was. The en-
rolled copy of the bill was presented
to the Governor on March 18th, and
was not signed by him until the 18th.
an idle and ineffective act, as the bill
became a law five days before by the
ten days Limitation. 1t was his duty
Il rC
came to him.
Judge Hughes thought that the onuS
was on Mr.. Henley, in attacking the
law, to prove that the Assembly, by
concurrent resolution with the Senate.
to recall and perfect the bill. He
thought the Legislature had the right
to the custody of the bill until 1t had
been legally passed. He wished to
hear from Mr.. Henley upon that point
Mr.. Henley contended that the Gov
ernor had no right to go beyond the
attestation of the passage of the DILL
and had no right to do anything but
veto it. He had no right to return it
Judge Hughes said that if the bill
had been properly passed by the AS
sembly, the Legislature would clearly
have no right to recall it. but this
bill not having been properly passed
he thought it had not been legally
transmitted to the Governor He ruled
that. the bill not having been legally
passed. the Legislature had the right
to recall it.
Mr. Henley then attacked the in
structions of the court to the jury that
the violence done to the feelings was
part of the crime, and said that 1T was
a consequence, and not an essential
element He also thought the court
erred in admitting the evidence Of
Iafferty as to the declarations of de-
PENDANT on the morning of the alleged
crime.
After the noon recess Mr.. Henley took
ND statements of the District Attorney
TO the Jury in the course Of his argu-
ment. concerning defendant and his
actions. and he argued that the Court
committed error in not instructing the
iury to disregard those statements and
o,,oted several authorities on the point.
He also claimed that the Court had re-
fused to give certain instructions he
had asked to have given. on the ground
that II had not had time to examine
them and held that 1T was the Court