National Republican., 1877-10-01
CONSPIRACY TRIAL.
THE CASE BROUGHT TO A TERM
NATION YESTERDAY.

CHARGE OF JUDdR MAoARTHUR-MEssRs.
SAWYER, HAINEs AND BROOKS FOUND
GUILTY MR. BARsTow ACQUITTED - A
MOTION ron A NEW TRIAL
The Sawyer trial. amer extending thirteen days In
the Criminal Court, was concluded yesterday by
the conviction OF Mcssr. Sawyer, Hsincs and
Brooks, and the scquttal Of Mr. BaStow. The
Court met at 10 O'Clock on Saturday morning. and
General Wells resumed the closing argument for
the prosecution. begun on the day previous.
lie spoke until the afternoon. Some time was then
spent by counsel IN presenting prayers for instruc.
tions. md then Judge Macarthur delivered his
charge to the Jury,
JUDaE MARTHUR's CHARGE.
After granting some and refusing others OF the
prayers Of counsel on both Sides the court said I:
Now, gentlemen, there Is another very elaborate
written instruction that the counsel representing
the defendants have requested me to give you,
and that Is defining conspiracy. and the proof nee.
essary to establish Its existence. have preferred
not to give 1t as they have requested me, however,
but substitute one Of my own, and will ask your
attention to that before proceed with my general
remarks upon the case. In doing this II will be
necessary for me to call your attention to tho ma.
ture Of the offcnsc charged In the indictment, and
the kind and quality Of proof that Is required to
establish It under the law
The indictment In this case Is founded upon m
alleged conspiracy and the proof to establish Il de-
Rends mainly npon, circumstance. II becomes
the Jury should understand how an agreement
among the defendants To act together to accomplish
on unlawful purpose can be made out from the acts
A conspiracy Is an agreement among two or more
persons to act In concert for the purpose Of
ACCOMPLISHING An UNLAWFUL DESIGN.
II may consist Of an agreement to accomplish
snme purpose not criminal In itself by criminal and
unlAMTll mgnus. The latter Ia the nff, nso
charged IN the Indictment In this case. and need
not. therefore. be considered by the Jury The cx-
istence of q conspiracy may be shown by an agree
to act as Is alleged in this Indictment in presenting
false claim against the United States knowing Il
TO he false. 1t seldom happens on trials for this
ofense that there Is evidence Of an expressed
ssveement which was meant TO be pursued
plishcd was expressed and set firth in the agree.
mont. Hence II Is rule Of law that evidence may
presumption that they have been acting under an
ngrccment or IN combination depends upon the
ireiGIenCy in & Of The scts; whether they concur in
complsh the particular end or purpose; whether
they were known by each OF the parties. aud We're
be implied where Il appear. beyond reasonable
doubt, from ,he scts In evidence that the defend;
purpose. lfit he found that
THEY HAVE BEEN ACTING INDEPENDENTLY
Of each other, without a common UNDERSTANDING
the Idea Of an agreement or combination must fall:
for there is no conspiracy unless their similarity
Of conduct Is the result Of design to act together
II the parties. therefore, have been employing
means To accomplish common object! if they
have been working together for the same purpose
and Il Is evident that they have entered into a
combination TO effect 1t, the combination or con.
spiracy may be reasonably inferred, although
there Is no evidence Of nm expressed agreement
among the parties; and when a conspir9cy has
arcasonOble doubt, each of the parties who jnlned
It Is responsible for the acts Of each of the Others
who were in the combination although Il NAV ap.
pear tIlAt one or more Ot them did not helm to
further the object of the conspiracy.
d, TSw iS gennIemen M H., having thus instructed yon as
these defendants. and which Is charged In this In.
dictment and having explained Ia you how II may
evidence,
CERTAIN VITAL QUESTIONS ARISE
affecting these defendants First, was there con
sniracyH secondly, were the defendants parties 10
that consplracy; and. thirdly ,ws the claim which
one, to the knowledge of the defendants acting
In combination? And. although counsel have pre-.
sented many considerations to the minds Of the
jury perhaps they will concede that the great lead.
Ing features OF the case are contained In these three
ceans. is the pnrpose Of the sonT 10 c" ynnr Sa
chronological order in which have Stated them,
but rather according to the order In which they
absolutely occurred In point OF time ! will there.
fore call your attention to the last OF these propo
Was their claim presented by Roddy on the 18Th
OF september, 1879 q false claim within the mean
ing of the statute which Furnishes a conspiracy for
the presentation OF false claims' think the Court
may be Of considerable service tn the Jury IN touch.
ing upon this point The consideration Of whether
that was
FALSE AND FRAUDULENT CLAIM
carries m back to the period Of the transanction
which we have been investigating for the last few
days. ltappears that In lSii there an cnor.
nous deficit OF moneys belonging to the United
States occasi0ned by the dcfacatlon of one Of its
special agents In the city Of Memphis Much tcs-
tlmony has been given as to how the money EN-
braced In that deficit was used or appropriated II
Is conceded fact in the case that the money was
In the first place received personally by Page who
at this time was president Of the Commercial Bank
Of Tennessee located In the city Of Memphis: and
the point which has been so much discussed be.
tween counsel is as to whose use that money was
c"ived by the United states. that It was appro-
Priated either to- the individual use Of
lsgc or the bank and that It was used
Co. have all been matters Of contrD-
yersy before YOU. shall not undertake to decide
that this money was received by Page and placed
with the general deposits Of the Commercial Bank:
that il was placed there, however, to the credit Of
PArklnan, Brooks Co; that 1t was drawn out OF
the bank upon their cheeks. and went into the
business which they We're then conducting the
purchase Of cotton. The theory Of the defense is
that which was stated by Carlton that this money
was not placed In the Commercial Bank to the
ersis e, rarEman ar Tnr Brook CO. that It Ias
bank. and that they. Parkmsn brooks Co. never
received any amount Of this deficit. nor used any
stop to
STATE A LEGAL PROPOSITION,
that II this mOney-money belonging TO the United
States-was received by the bank. and retained by
them. II raised an undOubtei claim OF liability on
the part q the bank TO thr United States II would
be true II Pnrkman. Brooks & Co. received this
money and used i In their own business. That
was one ofthe points IN controversy. and the prose
cutnn referred to the testimony OF Carlton III sup
port Of It, will not undertake to repeat the testI
mOny; there mny be other items of testimony
which cOnfrm the other views Of the matter. The
prosecution also referred to Pages testimony and
to the books Of the bank for the purpose Of showing
that this money that belonged 10 the United States
was used by Parkmnn. Brooks & Co or at least
that they had the benefit oft When It transpred
In Washington that this declaration existed Mt
Mrmphls II appears that the Government sent
special ngents To that city for the purpose Of invcs
tgatng the facts II sppcRrs alsn that nj that time
the city uf Memphis had hCrn taken possession Of
by the Federal truOps. aud perhaps Il wuuld not
be going too far 10 infer from the testimony that the
dominant authority IN that city at that time was OF
military character.
The testimony Il very scant rs to the existence or
operation Of the cyl Jurisprudence II Is true
that Judge Bartlett stated IN his testimony that he
intended 10 have commenced an action Of rcplcyin
which. Of course assumes that there was court
which could issue process In that action. We nFG
all aware historically, and We take udicinl notice
OF the fact that there was for II long period wnr
existing In the country: that Ii altered the face Of