The record-union., 1899-08-05
duty to have taken SUFFICIENT time to do


District Attorney Baker read from the
transcript to show that when Mr.. Hen
ley made his objections the Court had
instructed the jury that 1t was to judge
from the evidence of witnesses alone
and not from the statements of the
District Attorney.
The Court said that he was satisfied
that the act was valid. and that the
branch of the Legislature in which the
bill had not been legally passed had
right to recall it and reconsider it and
the Governor had right to sign it,
and that section 26 of the Penal Code
is the law of the State. AS to INSULT
cheney Of evidence there was no con-
flict except on the question of age, and
the mother and maternal aunts of the
girl had testified she was only fifteen
years old. Some other evidence seemed
to contradict this. but the jury had the
right to judge the evidence and the
preponderance was to the effect that
she was under sixteen. He himself
was satisfied such was the fact and
that the mother and aunts told the
truth. As to the statement of the Dis
trict Attorney, the province of the
Court is not to instruct the jury to dis
regard testimony or statements unless
with regard to extraneous matter or
evidence that has already been ruled
out. The District Attorney in this case
was only giving his version of the ev,
dence and the Court did not think he
mad done wrong. If there was any err.
ror it had been cured by the direction
OF the Court to the jury to regard only
the evidence of witnesses. AS to the
instructions that were refused, they
were not offered in accordance with
the rule of the Court, before the argu.
ments We're begun. but only a short
time before he had to deliver his charge
and he thought they were immateriai
He had given the defendant the ben
ent OF everything and believed that no
man had ever had a fairer trial than
Harlan had. He should. therefore, deny
the motion for a new trial.
Attorney Henley then made a motion
in arrest of judgment, alleging lac -.
jurisdiction, insuff1ciency of evidence
and other causes. The motion was de-
MED and Mr.. Henley pleaded for len
iency by the Court in sentencing his
client.
Judge Hughes commanded Harlan to
stand up for sentence He said the law
allows the Court discretion in pro-
nouncing sentence. He believed it was
good provision, as it allows the Court
to investigate the character of the de-
PENDANT in fixing the penalty He had
inquired carefully into the characte>
and life of the defendant before deter
mining on his sentence. The law is
punitive. having three objects, first to
punish; second, to deter others by the
example set, and third. to try to effect
a reformation of the criminal.
He found that defendant came OF GOOD
parents and should have led a good
lie, but latterly he had led a life that
must inevitably lead to results like this.
investigation had satisfied him that de-
PENDANT had only a few weeks previous
TO this affair been guilty of a similar
o1ense and could easily have been con.
vlcted of it. He did not intend to pun
ism him for that affair, but it had con,
Vlnced him that there was no hope Of
MS ever being better man. No man
with any sense of honor or goodness,
would have ever treated a girl in such
manner. He would send the prisonet
TO San Quentin at the request of his
mother and his judgment was that he
be confined there for forty years.
Mr.. Henley's efforts for his client did
not cease yet, and he asked the Court
Tor writ of probable cause, and thu
Court answered that he thought the
attorney entitled to it and he could
apply for 1t in the morning. He also.
at the attorneys request, extended the
time for filing his bill of exceptions.