The Portland daily press., 1895-05-18

Court was the next witness for the de-
/ Tense and had with him the court record.
He read from it to the effect that on the
goth of March Deputy Sheriff Chase en-
teredscomplaint against Mr.. Underwood
and swore out the warrant, and that the
latter paid the fine and costs.
EX-Deputv Sheriff Charles A. Plum
mer testified that he served under ex-
Sheriff Cram, at the same time with the
respondent, and that it was the custom
at that time to order up liquor sellers,
and that it was not customary to arrest
them, ii they could be trusted.
The seizure would be returned on the
day that it was made.
Cross examined.-If they'd had any
doubt as to the liquor sellers running
away, he would have been arrested.
Was there any way that you could
suppress warrant except by tearing it
up or stealing it?"
Not honestly"
Mr. Underwood was again called to the
stand by the prosecution.
When the respondent came to his Office
alter the seizure was made it was about
p. m. He did not offer the respondent
$50 or make any threats, as the latter
had stated.
THE ARGUMENT FOR THE DE-
FENCE.
|
Morrill, addressed the jury for the de-
tense. He said that never before while
his Honor, Judge Bonney, had dignified
that court, had charge of bribery been
made. 1t spoke well for the officers of
the county.
1t is a matter of common knowledge
that grave charges had been made
o1c oh
i de bauch public sentiment, and tend to
familiariZe the people with the idea and
suspicion of corruption where none ex-
lists
1t is suggestive commentary on the
investigations of the grand jury that
they could find but one solitary rum
|seller, the keeper OF a third rate hotel,
to swear that he bribed this respondent,
and il you convict him, it must be upon
this testimony. But you must ask your
seves, why Richard Underwood makes
4. this charge.
1t has been shown that he and the re-
spondent were on friendly terms. 1t is
through his rstory on that point pre-
sumed too much upon this friendship,
and when the search and seizure was
made by Officer Goold, he was intensely
exasperated, more SO than il it had been
by some other officer. He said to Officer
L d
of his. After trying in vain to persuade
aud bribe, he fumed and raved and
threatened and said, "I'il get square
with you. I'll soak your
What did he mean by that word
"soak?n Isn't it plain what he meant?
4 Before the officer had time to bring a
charge against him for attempted brib-
/ cry, he raised the Cry OF corruption,
talked it on the street, swore it to the
4 grand jury and then became voluntary
witness in this trial.
Why do ] say voluntary witness? Be
cause when he was asked by the grand
jury if he had paid this officer bribe,
tuition provides that no man need incrim-
mate himself. But he wanted to get
square. His motive was one of revenge.
Now gentlemen of the jury, Which
are you going to believer Harold E.
Goold comes here spotless and unhlem-
ished in character, so far as any evidence
| in this case is concerned.
On the other hand, Richard Under
wood comes in here, tried and convict
| ed criminal, and his record has been
read here. He says himself that he is
base enough to seduce a public officer
TO commit crime. Whose evidence will
1 you believe?
This is az action where young man
is tiled for crime that strikes at the
very tap root of lis integrity. III .@@
| So much for the character of these two
men.
But what about the consistency of
these two meu? When this seizure was
made, there were at least 30 officers in
this city whose duty it was to enforce
the liquor Jaw. Isn't it significant that
out of the so, this respondent was the
one who made the seizure. If Under
II wood had bribed this man, would he
have made this seizure but few DAYS
after, unless he was lunatie? If the
respondent was guilty, Under wood was
4 equally involved in the guilt. Now it is
a principle of law that it is unsafe to con-
vict respondent, on the testimony of
witness who is equally guilty. Many
states do not allow such conviction.
4 Mr.. Morrill, closed his argument by lay
ing great strees upon the Importance of a
good reputation to a young man. It the
respondent is found guilty, stigma
will be put upon him that will last as
long as he shall live.
THE PROSECUTIONS CLOSING AR
i GUMENT.
In his closing argument for the prose-
cution County Attorney True declared
that the evidence in this case must be
, confined to somewhat narrow lines The
government does not claim to positively
identify the dates of the payment of the
SIS at two different times.
admit that Richard W. Underwood
! paid a fine for liquor selling, but l call
attention to this significant fact, that
when you come to cases of this sort,
when you have put before you the testi-
mony of such man as this you must
/ remember that he was engaged in a
business that caused him to desire the
, protection that he says he paid for.
In such cases az this we put in the
best evidence that can be had, for people
of spotless reputation are not in posi-
, tion to have any evidence in such cases.
, admit frankly that Richard W. Un-
derwood is as guilty in paying this
money as the respondent was in receiv-
[ ing it. 1t is. however, very significant
that be should have made these state
NETS, taking the risk, as he does in SO
doing, of being indicted for the same
offense.
Tn such case the defense always argues