The Drunken Clerk Who Shot a Policeman Walked Out With a $1,000 Fine
Harry C. Good, a young man of good reputation, shot Officer Glasscock in a drunken freak. A judge who could have sent him to prison for years let him off with a fine — while a horse thief and a burglar each got three years.
Judge Humes yesterday passed sentence on a batch of criminals and finally disposed of the sad case of Harry C. Good, the young man who shot Officer Glasscock in a drunken freak, letting him off with a fine and no imprisonment. The others sentenced were Levi Wharton, the horse thief, and James White, the burglar, who were each given three years in the penitentiary.
Wharton, on being brought up for sentence, was asked by the Judge if he had anything to say. He stated that he came to this country from Fresno, Cal., where he has a wife and children, and has been trading in horses, and that this had been his first offense. Prosecuting Attorney Hastie said the statement, as far as he knew, was correct. Wharton received his sentence as quietly as if it had been a horse trade.
James White was brought up, and was very penitent, sobbing aloud several times. Mr. Hastie thought White was sorry for his misdeed, and recommended mercy.
The case of Harry C. Good was next called. S. H. Piles, his attorney, made an eloquent plea for clemency. Rev. Dean Watson, Mrs. Boyd and Mrs. Pease, with whom Good has boarded in this city, and Cooper & Levy were ready to testify to his good character. The court said many people of worth and responsibility in this community and other places where Good had lived spoke to him in his behalf. It was in his power to give the prisoner a term of years, but on account of his former good reputation he would impose a fine of $1,000 and costs. After the sentence the Judge gave Good some good advice, and cautioned him to be more careful in the future.
Good was very nervous all through the proceedings, and seemed to feel his position very keenly.
Williams and Sullivan were brought up for sentence, but their attorneys not being present they were remanded to jail, and will be sentenced on Monday morning.
“It was in his power to give the prisoner a term of years, but on account of his former good reputation he would impose a fine of $1,000 and costs.”
A young man with the right references shoots a police officer and pays a fine; a horse thief with a wife and children gets three years. The disparity is the story, and it is the same argument that fills courtrooms and op-ed pages today: who gets the benefit of the doubt, and who gets the book thrown at them. Judge Humes' reasoning — good reputation, respectable boarders willing to vouch — is a window into how character witnesses functioned as a kind of social currency.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.