ground, attempted to have intercourse with her, but failed in so doing, as an alarm was made by the other girl. The ground on which the application is made is that the said Albert Neville is suffering from the disease of consumption, aud in all probability will not live for more than three or four months if he remains in confinement. If he is now released from imprisonment his life will be prolonged, and he will receive the care, nursing and other attention required by his physical condition, as well as the comforts of a good home. As to the health of the applicant the deposition of Stewart M. Patterson has been presented to the Board. Reduced to narrative form it is as follows: "I am a practicing physician, having an office in the city of Pittsburg. I examined Albert Neville in the Allegheny County Workhouse on June 9, 1903; found him to be suffering with tuberculosis in an advanced stage. I do not think he can live three months if kept in confinement there. A hemorrhage is probable at any time. I think the young man should be released; he will die in any event, but there will be a chance of prolonging his life to some extent. I think the end is inevitable and not far off, and I do not see how he has lived so long in confinement." From a letter written by John C. Haymaker, Esq., district attor ney, we quote: 66 # * * I have made considerable investigation with a view of ascertaining the condition of his health, and I am now in possession of absolutely reliable evidence that the prisoner can live only a very short time. In view of the certainty of his death, which accord ing to the opinion of the physician must take place soon, and his disease being such as to make it important that he should be in the open air, or some place where he can receive better attention, I join in this application for his pardon. When the case was before the Board recently, I endeavored to get the opinion of Dr. G. M. Kelley, physician at the workhouse, but he was unable to get it at that time, and was therefore unable to send the letter." The trial judge, Hon. J. A. Evans, endorses the application in the following terms: "I know Dr. Stewart Patterson, whose deposition accompanies this application, and I can endorse what he says; and in that view it would be an act of charity to pardon the prisoner." Mr. Joseph W. Lowry, the father of the girl who was assaulted, joins in the application for the pardon, because of the applicant's ill health. In view of the critical illness of the applicant, and giving especial weight to the letters of the trial judge and the district attorney, the Board is of the opinion that this is a proper case for the exercise of executive clemency, and therefore recommends that a pardon may now issue to the said Albert Neville. WM. M. BROWN, Lieutenant Governor. Secretary of the Commonwealth. Secretary of Internal Affairs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, December 9, 1903. His Excellency, Samuel W. Pennypacker, Governor. Sir: In the court of quarter sessions of the peace in and for the county of Lackawanna, to No. 65 April sessions, 1903, George Bennett was indicted on the charge of embezzlement. A true bill was returned March 13, 1903. Defendant was called for trail April 17, 1903, and verdict of guilty rendered April 18, 1903, and same day the defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $100, costs of prosecution, and undergo imprisonment in the Lackwanna county jail for the term of nine calendar months. October 10, 1903, application for Pardon was filed. The applicant, George Bennett, is a young man, unmarried, who had learned the trade of butchering, and who, prior to October 1902, had lived with his parents in the city of Scranton. In that month he went to work for J. S. Sickler, in Sickler's meat store, on Capouse avenue, Scranton, at a salary of six dollars a week and board. In December of the same year Sickler opened another meat store in another part of the city, and placed Bennett in charge. A different agreement was made as to wages. The new store was near Bennett's home, and a long distance from Sickler's house. Therefore Bennett gave up boarding at Sickler's and went to his parent's house to board, and from the time of this charge was to receive a salary of ten dollars per week. This arrangement continued up until the first of the following January when Bennett left Sickler's employ and obtained work elsewhere. On leaving Sickler, Bennett turned over to him the money on hand at the store amounting to twenty-two dollars. There had been about sixty dollars' worth of meat left with him at this store, but of this quantity about twelve or fifteen dollars worth had been taken back to the other store. Out of the proceeds of sales during the two weeks he ran the store Bennett paid himself at the rate of ten dollars a weeek, aggregating twenty dollars. The money turned over to Sickler, the value of the meat sent to Sickler's other shop, the twenty dollars wages, and the waste, etc., in cutting, Bennett estimated made up the full value of the meat delivered into his charge. About a week or more after Bennett had left, Sickler caused his arrest on the charge of embezzlement, claiming that he was to receive but five dollars a week as wages, and not ten dollars as Bennett claimed. The case was fixed for trial on a certain day, but Bennett's counsel informed him that he would have the case continued, and no witnesses were subpoenaed for the defence. The court, however, refused to continue the case, and in the absence of proof as to the value of the meat sent to Sickler's other store, Sickler denying that the meat had been so sent, the defendant was convicted and sentenced as above stated. The deposition of the man who took the meat at the order of Sickler's is on file, showing its removal and fixing the value at about fifteen or sixteen dollars. On leaving Sickler, Bennett turned over to him the money The following are the reasons upon which the application for pardon is based: 1. Because there is a grave doubt of the defendant's guilt. 2. The Judge before whom the case was tried, and the District Attorney, have looked into the matter since the case was tried, and believing that there is a serious doubt as to whether George Bennett is guilty, have recommended a pardon. 3. The trail Judge also recommends the pardon because he feels that the sentence imposed was greater than should have beeen imposed if there was no doubt of Bennett's guilt. The following is a copy of the letter from the trial Judge: To the members of the Board of Pardons, Harrisburg Pa., In the matter of the application of George Bennett, who was convicted and sentenced in the quarter sessions of this county at the April sessions this year, upon the charge of embezzlement, I have to say that it was apparent upon the trial that the defendant's counsel had failed to appreciate the necessity of careful preparation of his case. It can be said, without intending any disparagement of the excellent young man who conducted his defence, that a more careful preparation would have been likely to create a reasonable doubt as to whether the amount of money involved was not the amount admitted by the defendant and was not retained under a bona fide claim of right on account of wages earned in the employ of the prosecutor. On the face of the record, however, the verdict was warranted by the evidence, and certain unexplained features of it tended to prejudice the defendant when the term of imprisonment was fixed. Upon reflection, being impressed with the notion that such prejudice might have influenced us and that it might be due to a failure to develope the defendant's case in its strength, I have investigated the information given me by his family and neighbors touching his character, as well as the history of the case, and feel constrained to say that had I been well informed regarding the boy's antecedents and his previous good conduct the imprisonment would have been made much lighter. I believe he has now suffered as much imprisonment as ought to have been imposed, and therefore consider it a proper case for executive clemency. Scranton, Pa., Sept 3, 1903. Very truly yours, E. C. NEWCOMB, The following is copy of the District Attorney's letter: To the Honorable, The Board of Pardons of Pennsylvania: Gentlemen: I have read the letter written by Judge Newcomb, recommending the pardon of George Bennett, and cheerfully join in the recommendation. From knowledge and facts which I have obtained since the con viction of Bennett I beelieve his is a case in which executive clemency should be extended. WM. R. LEWIS. Petitions of citizens of Lackawanna county, favoring the application, and certifying to the previous good character of the applicant, were also filed. In view of the circumstances of this case as developed at the hearing, and attaching proper weight to the letter of the trial judge and that of the district attorney, the Board is of the opinion that this is a proper case for the exercise of executive clemency, and therfore recommends that a Pardon may now issue to the said George Bennett. FRANK M. FULLER, Secretary of the Commonwealth. Attorney General ISAAC B. BROWN, Secretary of Internal Affairs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Executive Department, Harrisburg, December 9, 1903. His Excellency, Samuel W. Pennypacker, Governor. Sir: In the court of quarter sessions of the peace in and for the county of Bucks, at November sessions, 1902, Lewis L. Consolloy was indicted for keeping a disorderly house and for furnishing liquor to persons of known intemperate habits. The defendant was tried and convicted, and on Feburary 25, 1903, was sentenced in the aggregate to pay a fine of $51.00 the costs, and to undergo imprisonment in the county jail for the period of one year and twenty days. On or about the 15th of August, 1902, one Mathew Gantz entered the bicycle repair shop of Lewis L. Consolloy and got into an altercation with Consolloy, which resulted in an assault and battery by Gantz upon Consolloy. Gantz was returned to court for trial, and Gantz there testified that Consolloy sold liquor to various persons. Consolloy was indicted, but owing to sickness was unable to appear at the next term of court, and his counsel presented the usual certificate of the physician. The court refused to continue the case, and directed the forfeiture of the bail, and ordered a bench-warrant issued for Consolloy's arrest. He was brought to jail and held in $100.00 bail. He was unable to obtain the bail, and remained in jail three months until the next quarter sessions. At the trial the most important witness was Gantz, who is a man without character, and who is again in jail to answer for being a common nuisance. The jury acquitted Consolloy of the three former charges, but found him guilty of keeping a disorderly house and furnishing liquor to persons of known intemperate habits. That person was Gantz him self and the disorderly house consisted in the noise named by Gantz himself at the time of the altercation. The reasons presented in support of the application for a recommendation of pardon are as follows: 1. That Consolloy was not guilty of the offense as charged, and the evidence was insufficient to warrant his conviction. 2. That he had been sufficiently punished if it be held that the evidence did justify the verdict. 3. That the sentence was too heavy under circumstances, and out of proportion to the gravity of the offenses. 4. That Consolloy is a poor man, who has hitherto borne a good character for peace and good order, and that he has a wife and child dependent on him for support. The trial Judge, Hon. Harman Yerkes, in accepting service of notice of application for pardon, endorses it as follows: "I have no objection to the pardon, and on account of his family am disposed to recommend the same, upon conditions the costs are paid by the applicant." The recommendation of Judge Yerkes is endorsed by Jos. W. Shuey, Esq., the District Attorney who prosecuted the case. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as above presented, and especially giving consideration to the recommendation of the Judge and the District Attorney, the Board respectfully recommends that a pardon may now issue to the said Lewis L. Consolloy. FRANK M. FULLER, Secretary of the Commonwealth. Attorney General ISAAC B. BROWN, Secretary of Internal Affairs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Executive Department, Board of Pardons, Harrisburg, December 9, 1903. To His Excellency Samuel W. Pennypacker, Governor, Sir: In the court of quarter sessions of the peace in and for the county of Luzerne, to No. 349 April sessions 1901, Paul Urban was indicted on the charge of embezzlement. A true bill was returned April 4, 1901. The case tried in September 1901, and on September 12, the defendant was acquitted on the first count in the indictment and convicted on the second count. A new trial was awarded, and on June 26, 1902, the defendant was again convicted on the second count, to wit, on the charge of failing to turn over to his successor in the office of township treasurer certain funds received by him as such official. June 27, 1902, defendant was sentenced to pay fine of $1211.50, costs of prosecution and undergo an imprisonment at separate and solitary confinement in the Luzerne county prison for the term of two years. It appears from the record that the offense charged is a purely technical one. In September 1898 the defendant received, as treasurer of Marcy township, Luzerne county, the sum of three thousand |