The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-08-26
CASE IS PAROLED
DUNCAN CASE GIVEN PAROLE BY
 THE GOVERNOR.
wss Serying Three Months Sentence
 in Mobile fer Assault Upon PhfliD t CSsniAsky, A NswsnaDex

Duncan Case who was serving sen- tence of three months in the taai in Mobile County for assault and battery upon the person of Philip Ccsnsinsky, a newspaper man was yesterday pa rolled by Governor Cunningham.
 The parole is issued conditional upon the payment of . fine of $1oo and his future good conduct. Birdie Case. his cousin who was present and who as- sisted in the assault is still in jail serv- ing out his three months sentence Tor his part in the affair.
 In his endorsement of Case's parole the Governor quotes the opinion Of Drs. s. s. Pugh and D. P. Bcndurans, physicians of Mobile to the effect that the prisoner was suffering from tubeN cular trouble. The endorsement also draws attention to the petition from eleven of the jurymen which states that there was misunderstanding among the jurymen as to what punish ment the court could inflict upon the prisoners.
 An attempt y~ss previously made to have the two Cases paroled. but the Governor denied the application.
 The endorsement upon Duncan Cases parole is as follows:
 This applicant for executive clem- ency was fined $50 on May IS. 1S0l. In
 the court of the Recorder of Mobile for assault. He was subsequently, in- dicted by the grand jury for assault and battery. To this indictment hs plead guilty. The question of punish- ment was submitted to jury. The judge, trying the case, charged the jury that they could assess the punish. ment by a fine of not exceeding $500. | but if the jury thought the defendant | should be punished in some other way they should leave 1t to the court It
 appears the jury left 1t to the court
 and the defendant was sentenced to three months imprisonment in the county jail. Eleven of the Jurymen represent that they did not intend that | the prisoner should suffer three months | imprisonment in the county jail In addition to the payment of the fine and cost and that there was an under | standing among the 5urymen in re gard to the punishment and that if it had been known that the court coud or | would inflict such punishment. as above stated that would never been . verdict leaving the punishment to the | court. Tt appears further that the | jury could not agree upon the amount | of the fine" And in the absence of an
 agreement 1t was suggested that the I punishment be left to the court and tt
 was insited at that time that the court
 could and would only commit the de- | fendant to the county jail for thirty
 days and would never have agreed to
 q punishment in excess of thirty days
 in the county jail. They respectively l request that the punishment be re- | duced to what they intended 1t should
 be. that is from three months in the | county jail to thirty days in the coun- | ty jail. The applicant has been con-
 fined in the county jail since July 15
 and has paid the costs in the case. 1 Dr. 8. s. Pugh in letter snumerates
 many of the physical signs of tuber- | culosis. Dr. E. B. Bondurant makes
 the further affidavit that he l>is ex
 amined the spumtum of Duncan Case ! and that in this case l find a few tu- bercular bacilli. The young man Case
 Is in my opinion suffering from tuber-
 cular disease. Any person so suffering
 is injured by close confinement and l overcrowding." l Tn consideration of the physical
 condition of this young man let parole
 issue conditional upon his good con.
 si0o