The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-12-16
BROWN GETS s NEW TRIAL
THE EVIDENCE Oe CORRUPTION
WAS NOT 3uFft Isn't.
Supreme Court Says the Evidence May
Show Negligence on Part CT De-
1erdant Gut Not Corruption.

The Assignment Act was fraudulent
ly placed on the statute :bookS during the
last Legislature.
The courts endeavored to find out who
was responsible for the wrong perpetrat-
ed 1t was found that this particular
bill had been tabled and never passed,
and in order for it to get on the statute
books after that it had to go through the
hands of two persons, the Principal Clerk
of the House and the Enrolling Clerk.
The Principal Clerk was s. Z. Satter-
field, OF Person county, who was during
the recent campaign taken off the Re
publican legislative ticket for melting a
riot. The Enrolling Clerk was j. w.
Brown, of Granville county, These two
men were indicted in Wake Superior
court under two counts One for enroll
ing and securing the enrolment of the
Assignment Act, and the other for fraud
ulently and eorruptly securing the en-
rolment of the act
Satterfeld was convicted on the first
count and Brown on both, though Sat
terrified was then and is yet generally
believed to be the guiltier and more cor
rupt man of the two. Both of them APP
pealed to the Supreme court. Satter-
fields case will not be argued till the
next term; the opinion in Browns case
was handed down yesterday.
After q careful consideration Of the tes-
| timony in Browns case the court grants
him new trial on the fround that there
| was not sufficient evidence :of corruption
| on the part of the defendant to warrant
| the verdict of guilty as 70 the second
| count.
The opinion, which is written by JUS
| tice Montgomery, finds the following
| facts
| Eight witnesses, three for che State and
/ five for the defendant, we've examined.
! The testimony of two of tho States wit
| nesses and that of all of the: defendants,
1 is without the least trace os inculpating
| matter, either taken singlx or in con-
nection with all the evidence in the case.
| In fact, upon the whole evidence, with
! the exception Of that of the witness for
I the State Miss Branson) there was not
one particular, either direct or crcum-
stantial, going to show thai the defen
dant ever had any knowledge or inform
j alton Of any kind concerning the exist
ence of the bill until long after the Leg
islature had adjourned. Leaving out her
/ testimony there is not q scintdlla of proof
that the defendant ever saw the bill,
I either in the original or IN che enrolled
/ copy until it was found in the old libra
ry among tabled bills by the wit
! ness Ellington, who was State Librarian,
/ after the Legislature had adjourned
Whatever testimony there was unfavor-
able to the defendant, is embraced in that
| of Miss Branson. She testified that she
/ got the bill, to make copy of it, from
! the defendant, or one Of the clerks, on
1 ~ Il. IL.
it for that purpose for two or three hours
and then returned it to the defendant
and read 1T over to him, several other
] persons being in the room, to see if it
was correctly copied; that there was d
great rush and confusion during the last
days of the session. The defendant de-
MED most positively that he gave this
bill or any other one to Miss Branson TO
copy, or that she read it over with him.
Suppose it be true" argues: the opiu-
ion Of the court, that she did
read the bill over to him, is it the least
evidence of corruption on the part Of the
defendant, when the circumstances of
time and place are considered? IT
might, assuming for the purposes of this
ease that it was true, be some evil
dence tending to show negligence in his
failure to look at and carefully examine
the back OF the bill to see what disposi-
ton had been made of it; but we do not
see any evidence of a corrupt intent to
enrol or to have enrolled a fraudulent
bill. This failure to examine carefully
the bill might have been made by the
most conscientious person in the hurry
OF that days business.
1T appears from the testimony that
the defendant, as enrolling clerk, kept a
book in which was entered a list OF the
bills which were given out to copyists to
be transcribed for enrolment The de-
PENDANT failed to have this book on the
trial. This failure was undoubtedly
circumstance against him 49, :. But
suppose the strongest presumption against
him should arise, that is, that the book
! did contain the record that this bill was
given out to Miss Branson, how ould
that alone, or taken in connection with
the reading of the bill over with Miss
| Branson according to her testimony,
and his denying her testimony to be true,
prove or tend to prove corruption, in the
absence of other circumstances tending
in some way to show a wicked purpose,
that he acted for the sake of oppression,
of fraudulent gain, or any other wicked
motive 1t might tend with other cir
cumstanceS to prove carelessness. negli-
gence, but under all the circumstances of
given out to Miss Branson, how could
wicked purose to derive personal bene-
fit therefrom, or to injure the public
There was no attempt to show bribery,
gain or any understanding between the
defendant and any other person about the
bill, or to connect him with any suspi-
cious circumstances relating to- IL
Upon this showing of fact the court
is of the opinion that His Honor was in
error in refusing to give to the jury the
instruction asked by the defendant that
there was no evidence of corruption on
his part"