Page images
PDF
EPUB

county of Bucks, at September Sessions, 1902, Andrew Misley was indicted for selling liquor without a license, was tried and convicted, and on September 23, 1902, was sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000 and to imprisonment in the county prison for the term of twelve months.

On August 16, 1902, Andrew Misley, the applicant, was arrested at Morrisville, Bucks county, upon the charge of selling liquor at Morrisville without license. It appeared in evidence that the applicant was at Morrisville, with a wagon containing a quantity of whiskey, four cases of lager beer and a gallon of wine, and that he also had in his possession a small bottle of Jamaica rum and a bottle of alcohol, and that he was in the act of selling and deliver ing the beer and exhibiting the rum when arrested. It was conceded in his behalf that he had in his possession the articles aforesaid, and that he was delivering the lager beer; that the rum was a sample, with which to solicit orders, and that the alcohol was to be presented to a personal friend, for bathing purposes. It was conceded that he was without license. It further appeared that he was, at the time of the sale and delivery, acting for some other person.

The reasons presented in support of the application for a recommendation of pardon are as follows:

First. The said Andrew Masley, at the time of making of said sale, was acting as the regularly employed servant and agent of the Eagle Wine and Liquor Company, licensed wholesale dealers of Trenton, New Jersey.

Second. That, so acting, he believed himself to be engaged in a lawful business; and being unacquainted with the laws of this State was unconscious that he was committing any violation of law what

soever.

Third. In making such sale, he was acting for, and under the express direction of his said employers; and acted wholly without criminal intent or motive, and that he was unconsciously the victim of those by whose directions he was innocently acting.

Fourth. That prior to the offence charged, he had been employed for a period of fifteen years by the John A. Roeblings' Co., of Trenton, N. J., and had always born an excellent reputation as a sober, industrious and law-abiding citizen, never having been previously arrested for or charged with any offence.

Fifth. That his employment by said liquor company grew out of an illness, which incapacitated him from a continuance at the works of the Roebling Company, and compelled him to seek lighter employment.

Sixth. That his employment with said liquor company commenced on August 5, 1902, and he was arrested on August 16, 1902, while engaged in delivering goods for his employers to their customers at that place.

Seventh. That he has already served an imprisonment of about five months, a period almost two months in excess of the minimum sentence fixed by law for said offence.

Eighth. That he believes that the ends of justice have already been accomplished in his case, and that, in view of the matters aforesaid, he has been fittingly and sufficiently punished for what

was, while technically a violation of the law, committed ignorantly and without evil motive.

Ninth. That he has a family consisting of a wife and six children, who are wholly without means of subsistence, the prisoner being absolutely impecunious.

A copy of the above reasons was presented to the Honorable Harman Yerkes, the trial judge, and is filed with the papers in the case, and which bears the following recommendation by Judge Yerkes:

"To the Honorable the Board of Pardons:

"Gentlemen: I am convinced through inquiry that the facts within stated are substantially true. At the time the sentence was imposed I had reason to believe that the petitioner was engaged in violating the law through his own motion and not ignorantly through the solicitation of others, as now appears. As the facts now present themselves to me, I would not impose a sentence greater than the imprisonment already endured. The element of example to others has already served its purpose, and I believe the ends of justice will be answered by his release, and I therefore respectfully recommend his pardon.

[blocks in formation]

A copy of the above reasons was also presented to Joseph W. Shelly, Esq., the district attorney who conducted the prosecution, and is filed in this case, bearing his endorsement, as follows: "To the Honorable the Board of Pardons:

"Gentlemen: I respectfully recommend the petitioner's pardon, for the reasons given in Judge Yerkes' recommendation.

(Signed)

"JOS. W. SHELLY,
"District Attorney."

For the reasons above set forth, and because of the recommendations of Judge Yerkes and District Attorney Shelly, the Board respectfully recommends that a pardon may now issue to the said Andrew Misley.

WM. M. BROWN,

Lieutenant Governor.

HAMPTON L. CARSON,

Attorney General.

JAMES W. LATTA,

Secretary of Internal Affairs.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

Executive Department,

Board of Pardons,

Harrisburg, February 18, 1903.

His Excellency Samuel W. Pennypacker, Governor:

Sir: In the court of quarter sessions of the peace for the county

of Philadelphia, at December sessions, 1902, Dora Goldstein was indicted for larceny. On being arrainged she pleaded guilty to the charge, and on December 5, 1902, was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and to undergo imprisonment in the county prison for the term of three months.

The applicant was arrested for the theft of articles of infants underwear and dress from the store of Gimbel Brothers.

The reasons presented to the Board in support of the application for a recommendation of pardon, are as follows:

1. That the said act of larceny, to which the said Dora Goldstein pleaded guilty, was committed under circumstances and conditions that farther imprisonment would be cruel and unjust.

2. That the said Dora Goldstein has already undergone imprisonment more than sufficient to attone for the act committed.

That the said Dora Goldstein is in a very delicate condition of health and is about to be delivered of a child, and if kept longer in confinement will be compelled to give birth to said child under conditions and circumstances totally unsuitable and undesirable.

In further support of the application there is presented to the Board the following letter from John Weaver, Esq., the district attorney who prosecuted the case:

66 *

* * I have not the slightest objection to the pardon being granted, and I think that under the circumstances it is a case calling for executive clemency.

[blocks in formation]

From a letter written to the Board by L. N. Gortman, M. D., we quote:

"I am the physician of Dora Goldstein, and examined her twice during the period of her pregnancy, and according to my estimation she will be delivered in three or four weeks from now. During my examination I found her irritable, having an abnormal appetite, and not entirely coherent in her speech. Further, I believe that kleptomania is of common occurrence in pregnant females of nervous disposition. During the time I have been her physician I have known her to be of good character."

There has also been presented to the Board a petition from the neighbors and acquaintances of the applicant, praying that she may be pardoned.

The Board is of the opinion that the case is one deserving of the exercise of executive clemency, for the reasons above set forth, and because of the recommendation of District Attorney Weaver, and therefore respectfully recommend that a pardon may now issue. for the said Dora Goldstein.

WM. M. BROWN,

Lieutenant Governor.

HAMPTON L. CARSON,

Attorney General.

JAMES W. LATTA,

Secretary of Internal Affairs.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Executive Department,

Board of Pardons. Harrisburg, March 18, 1903.

His Excellency, Samuel W. Pennypacker, Governor.

Sir: In the court of oyer and terminer and General Jail Delivery for the county of Philadelphia, at October sessions, 1902, Joseph Ventrasco was indicated for the crimes of assault and battery, and assault and battery with intent to ravish and rape. Upon being arraigned on October 29, 1902, the prisoner pleaded guilty; whereupon he was sentenced to imprisonment in the Eastern Penitentiary for the term of five years. This sentence was, on October 31st, reduced to two years.

The petition of Dominico and Mary Bivulacqua, father-in-law and mother-in-law, repectively, and of Mary G. Ventrasco, wife of Joseph Ventrasco respectfully represents: That the said Joseph Ventrasco and the said Marie G. Ventrasco were, with the consent of her parents, Dominico and Mary Bivulacqua, united in the holy bonds of matrimony on March 6, 1903. That the said Marie G. Bivulacqua (now Ventrasco) did not become pregnant as a result of the said act committed by said Joseph Ventrasco, and is not now pregnant to the best of her knowledge and belief. That the said Joseph Ventrasco is a laborer by occupation, and is a sober, industrious man, who had never been arrested prior to the time of this occurrence. That the act for which the said Ventrasco was sentenced was, to the best of our knowledge and belief, occasioned by a passionate and genuine love for the said Marie G. Ventrasco. That said Ventrasco was born in Italy, and came to this country about two years ago; that after his arrest and before conviction, he offered to marry the girl, but her parents refused the offer. That your petitioners pray your Honorable Board to recommend the pardon of the said Ventrasco.

The reasons presented in support of the application are as follows:

1. That this was the young man's first offense.

2. The record of Joseph Ventrasco as a worthy, upright, hardworking citizen.

3. The fact that the circumstances prove the rash act was the result of genuine, passionate love on the part of Ventrasco for the said Marie Bivulacqua, who has become the wife of the applicant. 4. The fact that the virtue and chastity of the said Maria Ventrasco would be preserved.

5. The fact that the applicant is unable to support his wife while. he is in confinement.

6. The applicant, having served five months, has been sufficiently punished, and the ends of justice have been subserved.

We quote from a letter written to the Board by the Honorable J. Willis Martin, the trial judge:

"The circumstances exhibited such an absence of recognition of social duties that, with a view of warning the members of the Italian colony, who were familiar with the parties, I imposed

a sentence of five years in the Eastern Penitentiary. Upon further reflection, after sentence had been imposed, before the expiration of the term, I reduced the time to two years, making it conform to the punishment for seduction and promises of marriage. I have been informed that since his incarceration the prisoner has married the prosecutrix. In view of this fact, I would recommend that he be pardoned. So far as I was able to judge, he seemed to be an industrious young man, void of moral sense in relation to the occur rence, rather than possessed of depraved tendencies."

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as above set forth: taking into consideration the youth of the parties, the appli cant 22 years, and the girl 15 years and their nativity; and giving especial weight to the letter of the trial judge, the Board respectfully recommends that a pardon may now issue to the said Joseph Ventrasco.

WILLIAM. M. BROWN,

Lieutenant Governor.

FRANK M. FULLER,

Secretary of the Commonwealth.

HAMTON L. CARSON,

Attorney General.

JAMES W. LATTA,

Secretary of Internal Affairs.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Executive Department,

Board of Pardons.
Harrisburg, April 15, 1903.

His Excellency, Samuel W. Pennypacker, Governor.

Sir: In the Court of quarter sessions of the peace for the county of Philadelphia, at January sessions, 1903, Richard M. Morris, Jr., was convicted for the crime of perjury, on being arraigned pleaded guilty; and on February 28, 1903, was sentenced to pay a fine of $100,000, the costs, and to imprisonment in the Philadelphia county prison for the term of two months.

The applicant, Richard M. Morris, Jr., is about twenty-two years of age, and resided in the city of Wilmington, Delaware. On or about January 12, 1903, eloped with Geraldine Eleanor Beloe, whose mother also resided in Wilmington and went to Philadelphia, applied for a license to be married, and in order to procure said license he swore before the clerk of the court that the said Geraldine E. Beloe was full age. The license was granted, and the par ties were married at Philadelphia, and took up their residence at 1323 Vine st., Philadelphia. Mrs. Sarah G. Beloe, the mother of Geraldine, swore out the warrant for the arrest of Morris.

The reasons presented in support of the application are as follows:

1. That your petitioner is twenty-two years of age, has never be

« PreviousContinue »