Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1909-02-05
District Court

thlS AFTERNOON for the purpose of pass-
ing sentence upon Elmer Fulton, George
Stewart and p. J. McDermott. who had
plead guilty to the crimes charged in
the indictments against them.
Elmer Fulton, indicted for passing
froudulent checks in Carlin, was the
first one to be called up. Judge Brown
recited the proceedings in the case and
asked Fulton if he had any legal cause
to show why sentence should not be
pronounced. He had no legal cause.
nut stated that he thought he had
sufficient money in the Western
National Bank of San Francisco when
he drew the checks and that he in
tended to redeem them. After he
finished, Judge Brown sentenced him
to Ia months in the pcnitentiary.
George Stewart, charged with forgery,
was the next one. The court recited
the proceedings in the case, and asked
Stewart what he had to say for himself.
Stewart claimed that the check he was
accused of forging was given to him at
Montello by railroad man named
Ryan and that he had passed it without
knowing that it was Il forgery That
he was drunk Mt the time and did not
know he was committing crime.
Stewart Is colOred man of average in.
telligence. He was sentenced to 1s
month in the pen.
+. J. McDcrmott, the only one of the
three, accused of stealing three barrels
OF whiskey from the Southern Pacific
company mt Montello, to suffer punish
ment was the last to he sentenced. As
Ill the other cases, Judge Brown recited
the proceedings and asked McDermott
II he had anything to say why sentence
should not bc passed upon him. He
replied that Mr.. Williams would speak
for him.
Attorney Williams then addressed the
court. He said that McDermott was
not us bad man rs pictured by the de-
fense i'll the Hogan case. That he had
hcen held up as perjurer in that case
when lie was not guilty. He referred
to McDcrmott's evidence on the stand
IN which he stated that he was under
the influence of liquor the day he made
his statement to the district attorney
that was used by the defense in the
Hogan case. Mr.. Williams claimed that
that matter could have been explained
away had McDcrmott been represented
by counsel. That the young man had
been given whiskey, but the sheriff's
Office nor the district attorney had
given it to him. Mr.. Williams closed
with strong plea for lcniency.
McDcrmott then spoke n few words
in his own behalf. He said that the
evening Hogan came to him in the rail
road yardsat MOntello he was not under
the influence of liquor, but was busy
with his work. That he was not the
insigator of the crime and that he did
not throw the barrels of whiskey from
the train, and that he had not talked
with Hogan before that night about
stealing whiskey. Tho young mans
words carried the impress of truth.
Judge Brown next asked District At.
torncy Tabcr If he had anything to say
MIR. Tabcr said that if it could be done
he felt like uskihg Judge Brown to dis.
miss the case against McDcrmott as he
did not consider him the chief criminal.
While he had no right to say that judge
Hogan was the guilty man in view of
tho verdict of the jury, he could say
that no believed him to be. He spoke
Of tho matter alluded to by Mr.. Williams
and agreed with him that McDcrmott
had been given whishcy tho day he
made his statement to tho district ut.
tornoy. That it was given to him by
Officer Davidson of MontcllO and that
the Elko officers were in no way to
blame. 1Io asked the court for lcniency.
Ex.District Attorney Cainc was
then asked by McDcrmott to say
something for him. Mr.. Caine said
that he seconded what Attorney
Tabcr had said While McDcrmott
was entitled as matter of law to all
the court would give him. he was not
entitled to II as a matter of equity. He
agreed with Mr.. Tabcr that Hogan was
tho chief criminal in tho case and i'm tho
matter Of McDcrmott having been Civ.
on whiskcy tho day he made his state.
mcnt. lie also asked for lcnicncy.
Judge Brown then went briefly into
tho Hogan trial ITc said that hc did
not consider McDcrmott the most
blamcworthy ono in tho transaction
That to his mind there was sufficient
evidence before the jury in the Hogan
case to warrant his conviction. That
tho state had done right in disnissing
tho case against Woods for the purpose
OF using his evident against Hogan.