The French Broad hustler. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1896-1912, 1905-07-05
GeneaI Cotton Market.
Refused.

Governor Glenn declined TO paruon,
the gold brick ~swindlers, j. L. How
ard. alias Frank Thompson, OF New
York. and H. D. Hawley, alias Smear
Iy. of Chicago, who were convicted IN
Guilford Superior Court at the June
term. 1901, of conspiracy and SEN
fenced to ten years each in the penl7
tertiary. The Governors reasons
follow:
"The defendants were convicted by
iurv and sentenced by the court. IN
appeal to the Supreme Court, rui-
ing of the lower court was affirmed.
The defendants ask for a pardon on
the ground that they have already
been punished enough and are Ola
men. They also furnish testimonials
from every section of the country as
to their previous good Ut
dinarly these facts would appeal very
much in their favor, but the evidence
SHOWS conclusively they equipped
themselves with implements n ma
terials with which to perpetrate a
great fraud and also signed the
names of other persons to letters, 10
enable them to carry out their fraudu-
lent schemes. They o every al
vantage they could of the law, even
carrying the case to the Supreme u
of the United States, but in every IN
stance the opinion of the lower u
was upheld, and the Supreme Court,
in affirming the lower decision, saw
fit to express itself upon the fact
that they were trying to ~perpetrate
a great wrong and were not unJustly.
punished. After full consideration or
the evidence, I feel it would be a
wrong to pardon these men. The
were educated, they knew bet
ter, they were contemplating trying
to defraud citizens of u State, they
attempted to do so and when caught
couldn't expect an outraged law to
deal gently with them. The appllca-
ton is therefore denied"
TEACHEY ALSO REFUSED.
The Governor also declines to
commute the death sentence Of Dan
Teachey, who was convicted at the
August term, 1908, of the Superior
Court of Duplin of murder in the first
degree and sentenced to be hanged.
The Governor gives the following
reason:
On appeal to the Supreme Court, a
new trial was granted for error in re-
ception of evidence. The second trial
was held before Moore, judge, and q
jury Of the August term, 1904, when
the prisoner was again convicted Of
murder in the first degree and sentenc-
ed to be hanged. Again he appealed
to the Supreme Court, but no error
was found, n the Judgment of the
lower court was affirmed. In each ap-
p44cation for communication of sentence
from the death penalty to life impris-
onment the prisoner has been faith
Ry,Ilxy - - o-&l- rA~morn.&n6 z T
have carefully considered all evidence
heard patiently all argument, even al
lowing the prisoner to see me and
make his statement, but after hearing
everything that could be urged by
counsel and prisoner, deducted from
the testimony, the conclusion is ir-
resistable: First, that Bob Riven-
bark was wilfully and with malice
aforethought murdered; and, second,
that the prisoner, Dan Teachey, COM
mitted the crime. Two fair and i'm
partial juries have said the prisoner
was guilty. The trial judge and so
licitor refuse to recommend commu-
tation Of sentence, and the Supreme
Court without any dissent has affirm
ed the judgment of the lower court
and said there is abundant evidence
on record to the just finding of the
jury that the homicide was committed
in pursuance of fixed design deliber-
ately formed beforehand and under
circumstances attended with heartless
brutality; for these reasons, l cannot
disturb the finding Of the jury and the
sentence of the court. Application
for Communication is therefore denied
and the sentence pronounced must be
enforced"