"Joseph A. Smith, sworn, saith: I am a police officer of the Tenth district. My number is 1043. I arrested Edward Salisbury. I also arrested Turnerson, in front of 1044 North Front street, Philadelphia. I saw Turnerson jump out of the window and hand the clock to Salisbury. As I was about putting Salisbury under arrest he threw the clock into the street. I was told that they had been in Hamilton's tavern for about an hour before that. Hamilton's tavern is about twelve houses from Mr. Minton's house, where the robbery and arrest occurred.. (Signed) "JOSEPH A. SMITH. Subscribed and sworn before me this 14th day of October, A. D. 1903. DAVID F. BERRYMAN, Notary Public. We quote from a letter written to the Board by Laurence Minton, from whom the clock was stolen: # * * I was at home reading the newspaper; it was about ten o'clock; the man Turnerson lifted the parlor window and took the clock from the mantel-piece. * Salisbury's condition was taken advantage of by the real thief. I firmly believe in the innocence of Salisbury, and did not appear against him. It is simply a case of a man being punished for being caught in bad company. His punishment has been too severe already for such an offense, and I ask the Board to pardon him." William W. Leach, physician at the Eastern Penitentiary, writes the Board as follows: "I beg to say that Edward Salisbury is in a very poor condition physically. He has been under my professional care for the past eight months, suffering with consumption of the lungs and throat, and as he has nearly two years yet to serve, there is scarcely any hope of him outliving his sentence." The reasons presented in support of the application are as follows: First. That the punishment was excessive for the offense. Second. That the said Edward Salisbury has consumption, and is being treated for said disease in the hospital department of the Eastern Penitentiary. Third. His mother is eighty-two years of age, and her whole aim and object in life is to have her dying son pardoned. In view of the facts and circumstances above presented, and taking into especial consideration the state of health of the appli cant, as testified to by the Physician of the Eastern Penitentiary, and giving due weight to the fact that the applicant was under the influence of intoxicants at the time the crime was committed, and believing this to be a proper case for the exercise of Executive clemency the Board respectfully recommends that a pardon may now issue to the said Edward Salisbury. WM. M. BROWN, Lieutenant Governor. FRANK M. FULLER, Secretary of the Commonwwealth. HAMPTON L. CARSON, Attorney General. ISAAC B. BROWN, Secretary of Internal Affairs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Executive Department, Board of Pardons, Harrisburg, December 9, 1903. His Excellency Samuel W. Pennypacker, Governor. Sir: In the court of quarter sessions of the peace for the county of York, at October sessions, 1903, LeRoy Sigler and Charles R. Smith wwere indicted for the crimes of larceny, larceny from the person and for receiving stolen goods. The defendants were tried and convicted, and on October 21st were sentenced to each pay a fine of $1, the costs of prosecution, and to undergo imprisonment in the Eastern Penitentiary for the term of one year and six months. On October 28th this sentence was modified by making the term of imprisonment one year in the York County Jail. On the morning of the 29th of September, 1903, Lewis Levy, Charles R. Smith and LeRoy Sigler, three young men, residents in the city of Altoona, being out of employment by reason of slackness of work, left that city, with the intention of going to Washington, D. C., to secure employment. On the 30th of September they were riding on a freight train, and were arrested at Parktown as trespassers. There was then surrendered as security for the fine to which they were liable as trespassers, a watch that was in the possession of Levy, and they were released. They proceeded by passenger train to Baltimore, and were there arrested, charged with the larceny of the watch. They were returned to York and committed for trial. They were tried, convicted and sentenced as above stated. Up to the time of sentence the young men had not communicated with their parents, but they then did so, and the parents at once set about securing evidence of good character, etc., and succeeded in having the sentence modified. The evidence at the hearing as well as the evidence produced in court fully exonerated Sigler and Smith, and J. S. Zarker, the man who lost the watch, was uncertain whether the watch was lost by him while he was under the influence of liquor or had been taken from his person; and he failed to recognize either Smith, Sigler or Levy, and testified in court that he had seen neither of them before that time. Levy joined Smith and Sigler at breakfast one morning, and informed them of the finding of the watch. Levy had not been with the other two men during the night or previous afternoon. The young men having failed to notify their parents of their trouble, and having refused to return from Baltimore without requisition, the court was impressed that they were young men of bad character. The papers submitted to the court on the motion for modification of sentence, have been submitted to the Board, and are part of the records in the case. The mass of testimony shows a most excellent character for young Sigler. It appears that he never had in any way been connected with any criminal offense whatsoever; had always resided in Altoona; had no vices of a kind to be complained of, and the testimony of his fellow citizens and fellow workmen is that his character for honesty and industry is beyond question. The evidence in support of the petition of young Smith, while less in volume than that with reference to Sigler, is none the less certain in its terms. Smith, after learning his trade, had worked outside of Altoona, and did not enjoy so extensive an acquaintance as Sigler, but the testimony submitted discloses that he largely assisted his widowed mother in paying for their home, and that he was an honest and industrious young man. If any offense was committed by Smith or Sigler it was the first, and they have been sufficiently punished. The reasons submitted in support of the application for a recommendation of pardon are as follows: 1. The previous good character of the petitioners for honesty and 2. The absence of guilt in the commission of the offense by the petitioners, and of guilty knowledge of the watch offered for sale having been stolen. 3. The offense, if committed, being the first offense, the punishment is excessive. The twelve trial jurors join in the petition of Smith and Sigler for pardon, and "urge the Board to recommend the same to the Governor of Pennsylvania." The Board deems it unnecessary to reproduce in this connection the large number of petitions and letters in favor of the applications of Smith and Sigler. The documents are filed with the other papers in the case, and constitute very strong evidence as to the character of the young applicants for honesty, integrity and habits of industry. In view of the facts and circumstances above outlined, and believ ing this to be a case proper for the exercise of executive clemency the Board respectfully recommends that pardons may now issue for the said Leroy Sigler and Charles R. Smith. WM. M. BROWN, Lieutenant Governor. Secretary of the Commonwwealth. Secretary of Internal Affairs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, To his Excellency Samuel W. Pennypacker, Governor: Sir: In the court of quarter sessions of the peace in and for the county of Philadelphia, to No. 66, September sessions, 1903, William Kauffman and William Myers were indicted on the charge of assault and battery and aggravated assault and battery. A true bill was returned September 9, 1903. September 23, 1903, defendants were tried and a verdict of guilty was rendered. On the following day the defendants were sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and undergo imprisonment in the Philadelphia County Prison for the term of four months. The application for pardon was filed December 1, 1903. The following are the reasons assigned in support of the application: 1. The petitioners have been punished sufficiently for the crime. of which they were convicted. 2. The destitute circumstances of the families of the petitioners. 3. The sentence imposed is excessive. 4. The physical condition of the petitioners. It appears from the record that the applicants are police officers of the city and county of Philadelphia, stationed in the district of Manayunk. On September 4, 1903, these officers were called upon to quell a fight that was in progress among a party of foreigners, Polanders, and in attempting to make the arrest they were resisted and set upon by an overwhelming crowd of these drunken foreigners, male and female. In order to protect themselves and make the arrests the officers were compelled to use force, and the prosecutor claims that he was assaulted by the officers. This prosecutor is the man at whose cries of "murder," "police," the officers at first sought to protect, but who, it appears, afterwards joined in the resistance of the officers, and who, it is alleged, in scuffling with the officers, flourished a knife. The prosecutor was clubbed by the officer, and knocked down, which appears to be the basis of the charges for which both men were arrested. The trial resulted in the conviction of the officers, although the police department had not made any complaint, and it was stated to the Board at the hearing that the department upheld the officers' conduct. Petitions, signed by about five hundred citizens and residents of Manayunk, including men in every station of life-clergymen, physicians, manufacturers, merchants, bank presidents, magistrates, mechanics, and others, are on file, testifying to the good character of these police officers and to the belief of the signers that they were acting in the line of their duty and with the intention of preserving the peace among a turbulent and troublesome element of society, and asking for favorable consideration by the Board of the application for pardon. The record also shows a large number of affidavits on file in which the details of the occurrence are set forth at length by eye witnesses, from the reading of which grave doubt arises as to the guilt of the applicants of the charge alleged. In view of all the circumstances of the case as brought out at the hearing and as gathered from the record, 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 applicants, William Myers and William Kauffman. WM. M. BROWN, Lieutenant Governor. FRANK M. FULLER, Secretary of the Commonwwealth. HAMPTON L. CARSON, 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 Warren, to Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10, June sessions, 1901, William Lathrop was indicted on the charges of larceny and receiving stolen goods. True bills were found, and on September 2, 1901, verdicts of guilty rendered on each indictment. September 6, 1901, defendant was sentenced in No. 6 and No. 7 each to pay a fine of twenty dollars, costs of prosecution, and undergo an imprisonment in the Western Penitentiary for the term of two and one-half years. The chattels alleged to have been stolen were, in No. 6, a cushion from a cutter seat, of the value of $5; in No. 2, a wolf robe, of the value of $5; in No. 9, a plush lap robe, of the value of $6, and in No. 10, a horse blanket of the value of $4. The reasons assigned in support of the application are: 1. William Lathrop is a young man now twenty-one years of age. At the time he was sentenced to the penitentiary he was nineteen years of age, without money or friends at the trial, the only near relative he had was his mother, and she had no money to assist him at the trial. 2. He was convicted on four separate indictments for larceny. The entire value of the goods taken in the four cases was less than twenty dollars. 3. The four cases were tried as two cases, the entire testimony of each was taken in the two cases. Sentence was suspended on two of the cases and he was sentenced on the other two two and one-half years in the penitentiary in each case. 4. The reasons for making this application and to sustain the same are as follows: The mother of the young man is about sixty years of age and lives alone in the township of Wayne, Erie county, Pa. She is nearly blind, and without property, and her only means of support has been in the past the income derived from one cow and about fifteen |