The Butler weekly times. (Butler, Mo.) 1881-1918, 1903-05-07
SANDY" A FREE MAN.
Judge Graves Releases Him on Habeas
Corpus PrOceedings---Declare his
Severe Sentence a Travesty
Justice.

Severe Sentence a Travesty
| oil Justiee.
On last Friday Sanford White,
through his attorney, T. W. Silvers
applied for a writ of habeas corpus
as against Sheriff Joe 7. Smith, by
which he sought to be discharged
from the county jail. Last December
Maria, the wife OF Sanford, had him
arrested for disturbing her peace, be-
fore Justice B. F. Jeter. Information
was filed by prosecuting attorney
Horn, and Sanford was given six
months and ten days in the county
jail. In his application for writ OF
habeas corpus, as made to Judge
Graves OF the circuit court, Sanford
claims that the proceedings in his
case were irregular, and the punish.
ment inflicted was unreasonable.
After hearing the case upon Friday
Judge Graves withheld his Judgment
until Saturday morning, when he iiled
a written opinion, in language 80
plain and unequivocal, that the JUS
tioes OF the peace will hardly be guilty
OF sending other parties to the coun-
ty jail for six months for the average
petit offense. The opinin thoroughly
reviews the case, but the length OF It
precludes its publication in full In
closing Judge Graves says:
"But in addition to all this let It
be said now and for all time that
even had the information charged
both common assault and the dis
turbance Of the peace, both crimes
originating out OF the same circum-
stances and facts, it could hardly be
said that a court, in the exercise OF
ordinary discretion and in view OF
the character OF the parties before
him, could, without violating the
constitutional inhibition, have fixed
defendants punishment at six
months and ten days in the county
Jail. We can understand that where
person is charged with felonious
assault and the jury hears and deter
mines the case, that in compromis
ing the matter they may find him
guilty OF common assault and give
him this extreme punishment Of the
law, but we cannot understand why
a court, with plain case of common
assault, or Of common assault and
disturbance OF the peace combined,
with two illiterate negroes before
him, could find reason to say that
such person should be found guilty
and punished in the manner this ne
gro has been punished. II the par
ties were more intellectual there
might be some excuse for inficting
the extreme punishment in this case. |
but all circumstances must be con-
sidered by the court in fixing his pun
ishment. II the courts OF this county
having jurisdiction over misdemean-
or cases, would take up every racket |
which occurred between two colored
and illiterate citizens, and give to |
the offending party a sentence OF six |
months in the county jail, the county
court would soon have to build an
addition to the jail and at the end of
a few years the county would be |
bankrupt by reason OF the expense In |
the matter OF board bills. or course
expense should not be considered in |
the administration Of law, but the
condition of the parties and the char.
acteer OF the crime should be consid-
cred, and when it comes to giving |
100 days or six months in the county |
jail for the divers and sundry petit |
offenses which occur in every county
in the state it is, in our Judgment, q
violation OF the constitutional inhi.
bition and the courts should have
the power in some way to remedy
the defect.
In this case we have an illiterate
negro sentenced to the county Jail
six months and ten days for an al
legged breach of the peace, said breach
Of the peace occurring at his own
home and between himself and his
own wife. To permit such a judg-
ment to stand would be a travesty
upon justit g, and the sooner the JUS.
tices OF the peace in this county learn
to guage their judgments of offenses
by the character of the offense, the
sooner will proceedings in habpas
corpus cease, for this court will dis
charge every individual inflicted as
this negro has been inflicted. That
the negro had violated the law we
have no question. That after sarv-
ing four months in the county jail he
has been more than duly punished,
we have no question. That his pun
ishment, IA originally fixed, was
nearly four times what it ought to
have been. we have NO question.
all OF the questions of
the irregularity Of the proceedings,
which, by the way are absolutely
latal, and upon which the defendant
Is entitled to discharge, and basing
this judgment solely upon the ques-
ton OF the unreasonableness OF the
punishment, we have no besita ncy in
saying that this defendant ought to