Arizona republican., 1902-11-15
W, ], HAMMOND
 GOES TO YUMA
Verdict of Guilty After an All
 Night Session
Judge Kent in Sentencir g Him to Eff teen Mon'hs in the Territorial Prison Made More Clear His 0ffonse Against Society.

w Ds IlclllililOi4d, liAC ei0NlAOAiGNA' " eN'' yesterday convicted Of a violation of the Edmunds act. The jury had been out all night. The verdict was found at 5:20 in the morning, and as soon thereafter as possible word was con- veyed to Judge Kent. When court was convened the verdict was received and the jury was discharged.
 Il was learned yesterday that the jury on the first ballot stood ten ioI conviction and two for acquittal. There was mo- change in the vote until Il o'clock at night, when one of those who had been voting for acquittaI changed his position. After that bal lot was taken every hour and at half past 5 o'clock the jury found itself to- gether, and the last hope of Ham mond was gone. The jury added to the verdict an oral recommendation of him to the mercy of the court.
 It was generally t0lieved that the l jury, like its predecessor, would be un- able to agree. though it was plain from | the makeup of the body that there were not more than two or at the most three on whom the defendant could rely It was also believed that in the event of ! Q disagreement the case would be | prosecuted no further at this term. and that by the time it would be called for trial again the government would have great difficulty in collecting it's evil dence.
 | Upon the announcement Of the ver- dict, Attorney Bullard. counsel for the defendant. said that the statutory time for fixing the sentence would be waived and haif-past one in the afternoon was set for the passing of the judgment TEe defendant was taken into custodS z by the United States marshaps officers, Mrs. Cory who had been associated with the prisoner in the violation of the law, was at the foot of the stairs weeping copiously.
 When court reassembled Attorney Bullard made an eloquent plea fnr clemency. He reminded the court that the defendant had been convicted un- der a law which had existence only In the territories ard which had not beec originally intended for application to such offenses I- this; that the maximum penalty under it was greatly in excess of the punishment imposed in the states for the same offense. The attorney re- l called the recommendation of the jury to the mercy Of the court and he als., l alluded to the fact that there had beel, l a certain prejudice in the community | against his client. Then he made tho 1 strange plea that the defendant had ., ! wife and family who would to cel |. l tain extent share the punishment anl i disgrace of the husband and father: VI was true that Hammond was sep arated from them. but MT. Bullard said that the separation might net he permanent.
 Judge Kent listened attentively 10 the plea of the prisoners counsel aud then proceeded to the judgment Thr
 beginning was ominous. The frs: thing was to strip the prisoner of the titular distinction of MT" Ham mond. stand up.'' said the court The prisoner arose with a troubled looH
 Then the court entered upon a magpS- ficent address. There was no personal
 bitterness in it. but it contained the scOrn of the community. The prisoner was told that he had been convicted of the crime of adultery. There was ne
 doubt of his guilt. and his offense was attended by peculiarly aggravatinE
 circumstances. The conduct of the dt fendant had been a blotch upon the community. it had been so open and
 notorious. His disregard of the opip. ion of his neighbors had been itself o. fensive. for when he had been remon- strated with he had replied that his manner of living was the business oi
 nobody but. himself You have made
 mistake, Hammond said the court
 'The conduct of every man is the bust
 ness of society. It is the business ol
 every man to see that the morals oi
 society are not degraded"
 The judge told the defendant that hs
 had alienated the sympathy of all well. thinking people in the community: tha1
 he stood alone: that even his wife, tn,
 natural comforter of a man in his hou,
 of trouble, had been driven away frou
 him. The maximum penalty of hi: , crime was three years in the penite:r
 tiary, and there was nothing in tn,
 case which warranted the court in fix. Ing the punishment at a shorter period The court said that since the verdic had been returned he had talked witt many persons about the case, and h, had found no one who had any sym pathy with him: only one man who haC word in his favor and that was hi,
 counsel.
 But fin passing sentence the cour would take two things into considera
 
 under which he had been convicte, was not primarily intended to be ap piled to this class of cases and that {, authorized the imposition of a punish ; ment in excess of the punishment O , the same offense elsewhere. Anothe I thing was the recommendation of tn Jury of clemency. It was within tn, province of the jury, the court said. V make such recommendation. thougl } the court did not see why it had beel I done.
 $ For these reasons the court would no , sentence the prisoner to the maxinu1, I penalty, but it must be severe enougl
 to prove to other evil doers that tn = laws for the preservation of deceuc, f iH the community must be observed , Accordingly the defendant was sen p fenced to fifteen months in the terri Y torial prison.
 q The prisoner was remanded to tn l custody of the marshal and was take V to the women's quarters of the count I jail, whence he will be taken to Yum , tonight. The United States laws alloN
 the same time for good behavior tha