The news & observer., 1905-10-25
Durham Mans Sentence
From Roads to Jail.
BECAUSE OF HEALTH
Pardons Also Refused to John Rector,
of Madison, ]. D. Philips, of Rowan,
Joseph Black, of Greene, George
AIsbrooks, of Union, and W. L.
Mitchell, OF MeckIenburg.

The application for pardon in the
case of w. r. Murray, of Durham
which has been watched with SO
much interest was yesterday decided
adversely by Governor Glenn. who,
however, modifies the sentence SO
that Murray will serve two years in
Jail in place of serving on the roads.
In addition to refusing this pardon
Governor Glenn declined to grant five
others asked for as set out i'll the fol-
rowing statements:
''Al the January term 1905 of Dur
ham Superior court, the defendant
was tried before PEBBLES, judge, ana
ii jury. Tor murder, and was convicted
o1 lnanSlaughter and sentenced to two
years on the public roads of Durham
county. On appeal the Supreme court
affirmed the Judgment OF the lower
court, and now by petition, the de-
fendant moves me for an absolute
pardon.
In this trial the defendant was rep
resented by almost the entire bar of
Durham, lawyers of experience and
ability. Public sentiment was greatly
in his favor. 1t is not denied that the
jury were fair-minded, honest men,
who had no feeling of i'll Will against
the defendant, ana yet after hearing
all the evidence. the argument OF
counsel, and the charge of the court,
the jury found the defendant guilty
OF manslaughter. The Solicitor pray
ed the judgment of the court, the
prisoner moved that verdict be set
aside and a new trial awarded. After
hearing argument, the motion was de-
MED, and sentence pronounced, as
above set forth. The same strong
public sentiment that surrounded the
prisoner during his trial, has been
exercised for MIN IN MS application
TOR pardon tie has had the assist
ance OF the ahiest OF counsel; friends
nave testified to his good character,
standing, etc., ana petitions numer-
ousfy signed nave been offered in his
behalf. In order to give the defend-
ant every opportunity 10 be heard be-
fore his sentence should go into ef-
feet. L reprieved nim, first, until Oc-
tober 17th, giving TO each side all
the time required, / listened to the
reading of all the evidence and argu-
ment of counsel. Since this hearing
| nave carefuny read, reviewed ana
considered all the testimony, ana AFTER
doing so have irresiStibly come To the
conclusion that the verd1ct OF the jury
was in accordance with the testimony
and that the sentence of the court was
neither inhuman or severe. from all
the testimony, | am fully SatlS1led
that the prisoner commenced the dill
ficulty, and that during the difficulty
he got the pistol into his hands and
then killed the deceased, who was his
uncle Being in the wrong at the be-
ginning, the prisoner had no right to
shoot the deceased and therefore can
not complain of the verdict of the
Jury. which was manslaughter, when
it might very properly have been
murder in the second degree.
1.-The standing of the pr1sonerln Dur
ham county, his previous good char
acter and the condition of his family;
the intense interest manifested by MS
friends. many of whom are my friends
and persons upon whom | could rely
all combined to make me very care
full to see if there was any wrong done
in the prisoners trial. No evidence
other than that had at the trial. OF
that might have been had. was offer
ed, and so looking at this evidence,
after a careful and full consideration
| can but conclude that the jury did
right. The grief and anguish brought
upon his family, and the disgrace up
on himself. ought to have been con-
sidered by the defendant before he as
saulted his uncle, and even though
he himself was first fired upon, he
had no right to kill him, and there
fore cannot blame the law but only