The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1903-09-24
.DILLARD GETS
LONG SENTENCE
Judge De Haven Sends
Negro to Prison for
Five Years.
Mr.. Shcrtridge Gives Notice
That He Will Appeal
the Case.


penitentiary in San Quentin was the pun
ishment melted out by United States Dis
trict Judge de Haven yesterday afternoon
to William H. billiard, who had been con-
victed on four counts of an indictment
! charging the prisoner with uttering a
forged certificate of residence and of felo-
niously uttering fraudulent duplicate GER
! tifcates of residence. S. NJ. Shortridge
/ made an elaborate argument on the mo-
/ ton for new trial and arrest of judg-
ment, but both motions denied.
+ Shortridge, however, was granted a stay
/ of twenty days to allow him an oppor-
tunity to prepare bill of exceptions. He
will appeal to the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals.
/ billiard is a negro and was a trusted
/ clerk IN the United States internal rev.
enue office in this city under the success
sive administrations of Collectors o. M.
| Welburn and John C. Lynch. During the
| trials of Welburn and the charges of en-
! bezzlement DilIard who had been his
| companion in many of his orgies was
used as a witness for the Government
After the trial he was rewarded by pro-
motion from the position of messenger to
/ that of clerk
upon the argument of Mr.. Shortridge are
interesting. The following are extracts:
DE HAVEN COMMENTS.
The defendant has been convicted of utter
ing a forged certificate Of residence and of
having knowingly uttered fraudulent dupli-
cate chinese certificates Of residence in viola
ton OF section of the Chinese exclusion act
tof May .. 1892 and has moved for a new
trial The most serious question presented
arises upon certain language used by the court
in its charge to the jury.
Judge dc Haven went on to say that
his definition of a fraudulent certificate
in his instruction to the jury was not an
accurate one, but such a certificate would
undoubtedly be false certificate and If
knowingly issued as evidence of the right
of another person than the named in
| the original certificate to remain in the
United States would be a fraudulent GER
tificate within the meaning of the law
and within the meaning OF the charges
set out in the Indictment, although the in
dfctment not as direct and clear upon
that point as it might have been made.
| There was no specific exception, said the
court, to this part of the courts charge
and the defendant might not be able to
urge any objection to it upon appeal. The
Judge then proceeded:
I have for this reason. given very careful
consideration to the question because If it ap
peared TO me that the jury were misled by this
instruction. and so found the defendant guilty.
although they did not believe that the false
certificates were uttered by him with guilty
knowledge I would consider It to be my duty
to grant the motion for trial these
counts. There is no rule of law better settled
than this, that the instructions of the court
10 the jury must be considered as a whole
and If when thus considered the law appears
to have been correctly stated. the defendant
is not entitled to new trial because of mac
charge 1t must be remembered
that every man of ordinary intelligence knows
that to constitute crime there must be union
Of act and intent and that no crime can be
committed without-there Is a criminal inten-
tion upon the part of the actor. This being
was misled by the Inaccurate language used in
the instruction now complained of.
VERDICT NOT BAD.
The court said also that the verdict of
the jury finding the defendant guilty
upon the tenth count and not guilty as
to the four preceding counts. was incon-
sistent; but that this was not of itself suf-
ficient to entitle the defendant to a new
trial as to the tenth count, If there was
evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict
as to that count.
I'm other words" added the court, cit
is no legal ground for setting aside the
verdict upon this count, that the jury
ought upon the same evidence to have
found the defendant guilty upon other
counts, but did not. The court cannot
assume from the fact that the defendant
was acquitted upon the other counts that
the jury did not believe him to be guilty
of the charge contained in this particu-
lar count.
THE jury having found the defendant
guilty upon this count of the indictment,
it is manifest that the only question for
decision at this time is whether the ver-
dict in so far as it finds the defendant
guilty is supported by the evidence and
upon much consideration 1 am satisfied
that the evidence was such to justi-
fly the verdict. The motion for a new
trial will be denied"