Weekly expositor. (Brockway Centre, Mich.) 1882-1894, 1894-04-20
MICHIGAN NEWS.
NEWS IN BRIEF FROM THE TWO
PENINSULAS.
The Jury In the Case OF ex-secretary of
State Jochim Could Not Agree on "a v err
diet After Over Ten Hours Delibera-
tions-Other Erlefs.

During the second day of the
trial of eX-Secrctary of state John
W. Jochim, the prosecution sprung
a great surprise by resting their side
without producing any testimony of
Importance. Marcus Petersen and
Frank Potter were called but were only
asked few unimportant questions.
The prosecution refused TO call Gov.
Rich and several other witnesses TO the
stand, but the defense held that they
should at least be produced in court.
The defense produced number of wit
nesses who testified as to Jochims good
reputation. Two or three other wit
nesses were examined on minor points.
Then the defendant--John w. Jochim
was called lie swore that his first
experience on the state canvassing
board was upon the Richardson-BellS-
nap case in February, 1898; he then
signed tabulated sheets prepared by
clerks. His next sitting rs a member
of the board was April 20, 1898, aud
then he was told by his deputy-Lind-
holm-that the returns were not ready
to sign. He never examined the orig
inal returns from the counties; did not
clerks in tabulating the returns. On
May l6, 1898, he signed the returns in
the presence of Lindholm and Capt.
Spencer; he did not verify their cor
rectness. but signed them as Lindholm
placed them before him; did not even
know how many canvasses he signed;
had no doubt as 10 their correctness;
he had no intention OF defrauding the
state by accepting the increased salary
and believed the amendment had car
ried. In the cross examination by the
prosecution it was developed that he
was densely ignorant as to the duties
of the executive clerk and other en-
ployes and also as 70 his own duties.
lie had never read the statutes. He
did not know it was his duty to publish
the election returns until he was shown
a newspaper supplement at the grand
jury with the vote published under his
name. lie learned afterward that his
deputy attended to it. JOchim said he
knew a crime had been committed, but
where, when and by whom he did not
know.
The two following days were taken
up in the arguments of the attorneys,
The jury disagreed. EX-Secretary of
State John w. Jochim does not yet
legally-whether he is innocent
or guilty of dcfrauding the state of
Michigan by signing a fraudulent can
vass OF votes castlon q constitutional
amendment to increase his salary TO
gether with the salaries of several
other state officials The case which
attracted great attention throughout
the state came to a close much sooner
than was expected. but the result was
a sorry disappointment to both sides.
Judge Persons charge TO the jury
was very clear and concise. occupying
about three-quartcrs of an hour in its
reading. 1t was fair and considerable.
Judge Person said the duty of can
vassing and correctly determining the
result rested with three important state
officers, whose duties. IS defined by the
statute, were given. He advised the
jury that it was the personal duty of
those officers TO examine the tabula-
ton. The respondent said the court,
lis charged with making false pub
JIG record with intent to defraud. 1t
stands admitted that he made false
record, but that may be true, and he
still be innocent. Intent is the basis
of guilt. Respondent made a false GER
tifcate. BY virtue of that certificate
money was illegally drawn from the
state treasury Did John w. Jochim
intend TO defraud the people when he
signed the false record? If he believed
it was correct then he cannot be found
guilty"
The point in this case, it was said, is
not bread one. 1t is simply a ques-
tion of intent Il Jochim's heart was
right and he acted in good faith, he
must be held TO be innocent, but if his
4 l. !. 4.
he must be held guilty. If the facts
are consistent with the theory OF inno-
cence, acquittal must follow.
+, a. Baker asked the court to charge
that the jury must determine whether
.Jochim signed the canvass, knowing it
TO be false. as alleged in the Indictment.
This was done, the court added, how
ever, that if Jochim knew he should
sign true canvass, and purposely
avoided an investigation in order not to
detect false one, he is guilty. If a
false record was made by intentional
avoidance of an investigation. when it
was suspected to be false, it was equiv
plent to a knowledge of its falsity.
1t was exactly 0:3O o'clock a. m. when
The jury was conducted TO the jury
room, and the crowd in court room
soon vanished. At p. m. word was
yent out that there was no chance of
agreement, but Judge Person said he
would like TO have the jury deliberate
farther. At s:45 p. IN. Judge Person
mounted the bench and the jury was
called in. In response to questions
foreman Armstrong said they could
not reach an agreement; that the jury
had stood six to six all day, and that
the division was on question of fact.
Judge Person then dismissed the jury
for the case and the term and ad.
.jourped court.
DIR. Chas. Norton, who keeps a drug