The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1896-12-24
EHE JUDGMENT
IS REVERSED
hbe Case Of Brown In The Fa
nous Fraudulent As
signment Act.
CORRUPTION SHOWN

II will be recalled that the Demo
ratio hoodlums tried to make much
kdo over what was called the "as-
pnment act" about two years ago.
some way, bill which had never
Iassed the legislature was enrolled
a valid law. When the error in
nrollment was discovered, the Dem
cratlc tom tom beaters and "rain-
low chasers" raised a terrific din.
hey had some solicitors and one
hing and another, and this part of
be gang forthwith sought to mako
|ohtlcal capital by indicting enroll
BIZ clerk j. w. Brown, and chief
lerk Of the House, Satterfield.
fhese men were charged with cor
uption in enrolling the bill. No
|ody else was indicted. If these
pen were corrupted, somebody did
be corrupting, but we never saw
my disposition on the part OF the
Democratic solicitors and "sich" to
iscover who the corrupters might
The reason was that the bill
ID been fostered by some very
kominent Democrats.
Well, Brown and Satteriield were
bnvicted. OF course, That's what
hey we're indicted for to be con-
icted. That was the scheme of the
rainbow chasers," and they were
Bntenced to pay fines and work on
he public roads. Nobody believed
hese men guilty of the charge-Dot
ven those who prosecuted them.
An appeal was taken to the Su
RENE court In the case of Brown.
: (he case was recently heard, and
heXSupreme court proceeded to put
zeal of condemnation on the dis
bful prosecution in the lower
ou2S by arresting everything that
I'D been done there. The decision
uvf the Supreme court is not of par
|tisan character. 1t is a unanimous
opinion of ell the Justices, repre-
senting the various political parties
lin the State The opinion was writ
ten by Justice Montgomery, and is
rs follows:
"After the examination of the wit
hesses had been concluded, the de-
fendant's Brown'sl counsel asked
The court to instruct the jury that
there was no evidence of corruption
, on the part of the defendant. Upon
most careful consideration of the
Whole evidence, we are of the opln-
m rthat the defendant Brown was
titled to the instruction, and that
Is Honor Judge McIverl should
ave given it. Fig ght witnesses,
three for the State and five for the
were examined. The
testimony of two of the States wit
nesses and that of all the defend
ants, (witnesses) is without the least
trace Of inculpating matter, either
taken singly or in connection with
all the evidence in the case. In fac
upon the whole evidence, with the
exception of that of the witness fol
the State Miss Bransop) there wa.
not one particle, either direct or cir
cumstantial, going to show that tn,
defendant ever had any knowledge
or information of any kind concern
ing the existence Of tie bill unit
long after the legislature adjourned
Leaving out her Testimony there i
not q scintilla of proof that the de
fendant ever saw the bill, either il
the original or in the enrolled cop,
until it was found in the old librar,
among tabled bills by the witnes
Ellington who was the State Libra
rian, after the legislature had ad
iourned. Whatever testimony ther
was unfavorable to the defendant i
embraced in that of Miss Branson
She testified that she got the bill, t
make q copy of it, from the defend
Ant or one of the clerks on the las
3ay of the session; that she kept j
eos that purpose for two or thre
hours and then returned it to the de
fondant and read it over to him, sew
eral others being in the room, to Sc
u it was correctly copied; that ther
vas q great rush and confusion du
ring the last days of the session
(lfr. Walser, speaker of the House
kad testified that on the last day G
~ session more than $50 bills wer
ra4ified.) The defendant denie
most positively that he gave thl
hill or any other one to MISS Brar
on to copy, or that she read it owe
With him. Suppose it be true ths
she did read the bill over to him,
"a the least evidence of coRRUPTIo
a the part of the defendant, whe
"a circumstances of time and plat
- cousideredi 1t might, assumiu
Tor the purposes of this case that
vas true, be some evidence tendir
TO show negligence in his failure
iook at and carefully examine Il
1ack Of the bill to see what dispos
SDn had been made of il; but We
~ see any evidence of corrupt i
mt TO enroll, or have enrolled,
audulent bill. This failure to 9
line carefully the bill might ha
Sen made by the most conscientio
ersou in the hurry of that da.
usiness. 1t appears from the tes
Tony that the defendant, as enro
ng clerk, kept q book in which W
nfered q list of the bills whichiwe
Siven out to the copyists to be ira
Icribed for enrolment. The defer
INF failed to have this book on tri
This failure was undoubtedly c
.tcumstance against him.
IVA "The conduct of q party In ON
|4&ins to produce that evidence,
Falucidation of the subject matter
dispute, which is within his pov
I and which rests peculiarly within
own knowledge, frequently affol
occasion for presumption agai
him, since it raises q strong sus
cion that such evidence, If adduc
would operate to his prejudice,
Stsrkie on Evidence, p. 73. !
suppose the strongest presumpt
against him should arise, that
thst the book did contain the rec
that this bill was given cut to n
! Brsnson, how could that alone
or taken in connection with
= "a Al hill 0vor with u