The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-01-15
ASSIGNMENT ACT CASE
SaitarfieId and Brown Convicted Of Allow
ing the Bills Fraudulent Enrolment.
SATTERFIELD ESCAPES IMPRISONMENT
While BroHn Tried and Sentenced
One Eenr SntterGcid's Punish
mont Consists Ofn Finc-H0th Men
Appeal to The Supreme Court.

Raleigh. n. c., Jan. 1I.-The jury in
the Superior Court here to-day returned
Il verdict of guilty against Enrolling
Clerk j. w. Brown, OF the Legislature.
on both counts of the Indictment against
him. The first count charged that he
unlawfully and wilfully omitted. neglect
ed and refused TO discharge the duties
OF his Office by causing and permitting
what is known as the assignment act
to he enrolled as II public law. The sec
ond count charged that he unlawfully
and corruptly omitted neglected ana re-
fused to discharge the duties of his
office by frauduently causing and per-
hitting to be enrolled II fraudulent law.
Solicitor Pou prayed Judgment on
Brown and also ON Sattertteld, the prin-
cipal clerk of the lower house. Satter-
f!elds case was first taken up. His at
torney argued that nothing in the evil
dence had proved evil intent or bad
faith. and that he WAS being punished
for what somebody else had done: that
l.iilington. and not satteriield. was in
charge officially. Then they made three
motions to set aside the verdict for
arrest of Judgment and for now trial
Solicitor Pou stated that these mo-
tons were made so as to get the case
fairly and squarely before the Supreme
Court. Sattcrticld'S counsel then argued
that the weight of evidence was CON
trary to law as laid down by the court ::
that the first count W g drawn under he
common law and not under statute law:
that the verdict was unsupported by
testimony: that there was error in the
courts not so holding on the defendants
demurrer to the testimony: that there
was error in the Judges charge to the
jury.
Judge McIver denied all three mo-
tions, and Satterfeld's attorneys eN-
cepted 10 the rulings. Solicitor Pou said
Sattcrtield was convicted on the first
! count which charged misconduct with
| out corrupt Intent. and acquitted on the
second count, which charged miscan-
duct with corrupt intent The
TO impose any sentence of :m I'M
prisonment as Satteriield had not
been found guilty upon the whole bill
Satterfeld's attorneys thanked the So
licttor for this request, saying he show
ed true manhood in not hitting n man
after he was down: that the costs
would be very heavy. and that Satter-
field was poor. The Judge said
Satteriield had been found guilty Of
negligence and careesSncss and ought
to nave known the consequences. If he
had been convicted ON the second count
he would certainly have been sentenced
to imprisonment but as Satterfield was
only guilty of mis'lemenncr he would
impose $2a0 fine and costs.
The Judge said he had been troubled
no little 10 know what TO do.
Sattcrfield's counsel then appealed to
the supreme Court. te was not pres
ent until after these proceedings ter,ni-
matted. but was then sent fer and came
into c""rt. He gave bond in the sum
OF $500 for his appearance at the Su-
prenc Court.
Browns case was then taken up Mo-
tionS in arrest of Judgment and for n
new trial were made as in Satterficld's
case. Judge McIvcr denied both The
defendant excepted both. The Judge
then sentenced him to pay n fine of $3.50
and ~ work on the public roads of this
county twelve months. He appealed 10
the supreme Court. and gave $500 bond
for his appearance at the Supreme
Court