Democratic Sentinel, Volume 9, Number 1, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 January 1885 — JUDCE WARD’S FINDING. [ARTICLE]

JUDCE WARD’S FINDING.

The defendant having entered a plea of guilty, and the court having fullyconsidtied the evidence that has teen introduc ed iu this cause, there will be a finding of guilty or murder In the first degree. This devolves a very grave responsibility upon the court in determining the sentence. If the statute provided but one grate of punishment, it would have •'een the duty of the court to pass sentence at ODce. Inasmuch as the statute provides that the ponicihment might either be by death or bv confinement at bard labor in the Btate Prison for life, evidence was heatd in order that the court might determine whether or not the defendant £Uffe r s the higher, or lower penalty. In cases where the defendant is charged with a crime, end enters a plea ol guilty, it is the duty of tbe court to consider that, and especialiy is that the case ingthe lighter giades of crime, and in such cases the court urunt.y passes a lighter sentence without Investigating the matter at all; but in cases of this magnitude, it is prop, er for the court to enquire into the nature ot the offense. s-> t.iat the conviction may be upon something tanginie In this case the evidence ebows that the defendant and deceased were living near neigh hors, and had teen for some time, that they were on friendly relations, and that the defendant told the deceased that he bail a hex of fish at the Kankakee river, and that he wanted the deceased tog-» and haul the fish for him. When they reached the river and the deceased asked where ibe fish were, the defendant told the deceased that they were to be caught. There was then some statement made by the defendant Id regard to the'deceased becoming angr'. Those statements were noi made in ihefirstcoDfessioD, and were not made for a considerable time afterward. They make no excuse, or show auy mitigation in favor of the defendant The defendant, by his own testimony, and the testimony of his wife, stated that they had a family of five children, and bad nothing to eat in the house. After evidence was introduced upou the other side that they had received money that day, bought groceries,' and had provision, ana they hud at least fifty pounds of flour, witli potatoes suid Hsh and pork. They both testtfied that it watffood which they and family relishea. The deter,dant, immediately after the killing, took possession of all the property of deceased. These are stmply the main outlines and the court, after having fuliy considered tne evidence, and taking in consideration all the circumstances as shown by the evidence o. the witnesses, and the statement of the defendant himself, fixes bis punishment at death. The Judge then asked the prisoner, through the interpreter, if he had anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced agaiust him. In response he presented a paper prepared by himself which was read and interpreted to the court.

The defendant was ttien directed to -tand up, when the court, through the interpieter, pronounced the following SENTENCE: Tt is the iudgment of the court that you be taken from hence to me jail of this county and there confined until the 16th day of M-ay, 1885, on which day, between the hours of 9 o’clock in the forenoon, and 4 o’clock in the afternoon, you shall b. hanged by tbe neck until you are dead. The sheriff of the county is charged with the execution of ibis or tier