The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1909-06-11
CHAUFFEUR GETS
LONG PRISON TERM
In Sing Sing From Seven to Twenty
Years.
JUDGE CALLS HIM MURDERER.

JUICE CALLS HIM MURDERER.
William Darragh, Who Ran Down
And Killed Young Ingvaard Trim
BILE And Then Fled From New
York, Gets Severe Arraignment
From Judge-Next Man Arrested
On Same Charge May Go To Elec-
trio Chair, Court Declares.
New York Especially William
Darragh, the chauffeur. who killed
boy and ran away, was sentenced
to Sing Sing prison for not less than
seven years. and not more than
twenty. Judge Mulqueen's remarks
were calculated to make an impress
sion wherever they are read; and it
is safe to say that every chauffeur
and antomobile-driver will read ey-
cry word of them.
Judge Mulqueen said that the
proof of murder had been over
whelming. and that Darragh should
have been glad to escape with con-
viction of manslaughter He add
ed that, If another chauffeur should
be tried on similar charge, he
would undoubtedly be sent to the
chair.
1t was Darragh who ran. down
13-year-old Ingvaard Trimble, at
Morningside Avenue and One Hun
dred and Sixteenth Street, on March
~, and, after dragging the boy for
some distance, thus INJECTING the in
Juries from which he died, speeded
away and was arrested only after
pursuit to Texas. He was accused
OF murder, and the General Sessions
jury before which he was tried found
him guilty of manslaughter in the
first degree.
Warming To The Reckless.
Judge Mulqueen told Darragh
that, If he imagined himself the VIC
tim of the popular clamor against
reckless chauffeurs as a class, he was
mistaken, because he had had a fair
trial, and had been convicted on the
strength of his own crime. However,
the judge then went on to say that
he hoped the punishment he melted
out to NDarragh would serve as
warning to other chauffeurs.
This case has excited such in
terest that it seems proper to state
briefly the principles that guide the
determination of the sentence to be
imposed" said the Judge. Not that
| wish to add to your sufferings, but
because / think that the public
should have clear notion of the
matter.
No new or obscure law has been
invoked in this instance. The sta
tute defining murder in the first de-
gree is very old. 1t provides as fol-
lows: The killing of a human be-
ing, unless it is excusable or justi-
fable, is murder in the first degree,
when committed by an act immi-
nently dangerous to others, and
evincing depraved mind, regard
less of human life. although without
premediated design to effect the
death of any Individual. es,
That law was enacted at time
when the automobile was unknown,
and when the present intolerable
conditions could not possibly have
been foreseen. And yet it SO clearly
applies to the reckless use of these
machines that l doubt if its terms
could be improved upon by the most
expert legislative draughtsman.
1t was urged by your learned
counsel that you did not intend to
kill your victim. But 1t Is an ele-
mentary legal rule that a mans in
tent may be inferred from his acts.
When you took your seat in that car
you were free to drive carefully or
recklessly You choose to go at
most reckless speed. And you knew
that you bore message of death
for the unfortunates in your path.
You knew that all the people had
at least an equal right to our streets
and roads. You cared more for
your own pleasure than for the life
or any other person You had the
power to choose, and you elected
to do that which destroyed an inno-
cent life and brought the deepest
sorrow to happy home.
Brands 1t As Murder.
Experienced counsel evoked all
their skill and persuasive eloquence
in your behalf. Every talesman who
admitted the slightest prejudice was
excluded from. the jury, and those
finally chosen were repeatedly warn
ed in my charge to confine their at
tention solely to the evidence pro-
duced in this case They were told
that it was not their duty to regu-
late public affairs, but to decide on
the truth or falsity of the specific
charge against you. If any motive
swayed the jury other than a sense
of duty it was not a desire for re-
venge, but rather spirit of mercy.
Indeed, / am convinced that if you
had been rich man or a dissolute
man the verdict would have been
"The legal proof of murder was
overwhelming. But not even the
most sympathetic could acquit you
Of manslaughter The statutes de-
lining that crime were clearly appli- |
cable, and no question of intent IL
involved in them. The law does not |
seek revenge, and punishment of one
is intended to serve as a
warning to Others"
Cost 500 For Eriandss nriuIr