Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-08-29
THE BOARD Of PARDONS
IN SESSION AT MoUNDsvILLE
PASSED on THREE CASES
YESTERDAY.
PATRICK o'BRIEN REFUSED
Pardon by the Board-He VISA
Convicted of Burglary Here i'm
ts9s-The Opinion of the Board.
other Decisions.


other Decisions.
The Board of Pardons is again in
session at the penitentiary and yester-
dav passed upon three cases. declining
10 report favorably upon any of them.
The opinion in the case of Patrick
OBrien, of Wheeling, is herewith
given:
OBrien, having been convicted in
the Criminal Court of Ohio county
was on the 9th of May, 1898, sentenced
by that court to five years imprison-
ment in the penitentiary.
His pardon is asked by considerable
number of petitioners. consisting of Of
fcials. attorneys and citizens of Ohio
county. There is nothing else in the
case. excepting communication from
OBrien In which he assigns several
reasons for his pardon. The petition
efs say that there are mitigating cir
cumstanees in connection with
O'Briens crime. OBrien and one
Oliver Jenkins, were. as stated by petit
TONERS, in the house they were charged
with entering to rob at the time of their
arrest for another purpose than rob
berry and were there by mistake hav-
ing been directed to the wrong house.
They we're arrested while in the dwell
ing house of reputable people. They
made no resistance to arrest. Petit
TONERS say that the natural course of
the law took both the men to the peni-
tertiary. Jenkins was pardoned be-
fore he had served enc year. They say
that the circumstances in the two cases
are exactly similar, and that O'Brien
is only guilty of unintentional burg
larry. and that he is confined while
Jenkins. equally guilty, mas been par
doned. Petitioners believe this to be
unjust. They say that O'Brien is an
Industrious, hard working man, that he
has faithfully promised to refrain from
all intoxicants and to live uprightly
hereafter. They express the belief that
the petitioners never intended to com
nit burglary, say they know his weak
nesses express the belief that the ends
of Justice have been met and the man
sudlelently punished. They believe
that no good purpose can be accom-
plished by O'Briens further imprison-
ment. We can, as rule. attach but
little weight to mere petitions, how
ever worthy and reputable may be the
signers. But we will notice briefly
some of the grounds upon which petit
TONERS rely.
There is no offense in which the in
tent is more important than in burg
larry. If O'Brien and Jenkins entered
the house in which they were arrested,
with the intent ascribed to them by the
petitioners, plainly, they would not be
guilty of burglary. But with what in
tent did they enter? And who could
be better situated to determine the
specific intent at the very time its
presence was necessary to constitute
the offense, than the court and jury? II
there be any question as to whether
certain intent existed at certain time,
the finding of thecourt and jury Is en-
titled to peculiar weight. A mans in
tent must be determined from his con-
duct and declarations, from circum-
stances and manifestations too numer-
GUS to mention, all of which were pre-
sumably before the jury. They are not
before us. The court and jury were
much better judges on that question
than we could possibly be. The fact
that Jenkins was pardoned cannot az
feet O'Briens claim to such pardon
We presume that Jenkins was properly
pardoned, but there were probably
other grounds than those urged on
O'Brien's behalf. He may have been
pardoned upon some ground or for
some reason not connected with the
commission of the offense.
We see no ground for the pardon of
OBrien, and we recommend that it be
refused.
Andy Day was convicted Of larceny
in the Circuit Court of Tucker county,
and sentenced to five years in prison.
He hac haan In rriSpu now about two