Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-01-15
sATTERFIELD AND BROWN.
Both These Douglass Legislature
Clerks Fined-They Appeal.

RALEIGH, X. G, January lL-lnc
Jury in the Superior Court here to-day re-
turned a verdict of guilty against En-
rolling-Clerk ]. w. Brown, OF the Legis-
lature, on both counts Of the indictment
against him. The first count charged
that he unlawfully and wiifully omitted
neglected. and refused to discharge the
duties Of his Office. by causing and per-
mittilg what Is known as the assign
ment act TO be enrolled as public law.
The second count charged that ne unlaw-
fully and corruptly omitted, neglected
and refused 10 discharge the duties OF MS
Office b. fraudulently causing and per-
hitting % be enrolled as PUBIC Ia" d
certain pretended act.
Solicitor Pou prayed judgment on
Brown. and also on satterheld, the Drin-
cipal clerk OF the lower house.
Safterdeld's case was first taken up.
His attorneys argued that nothing In the
evidence had proved evil Intent or PAD
faith. and that he was being punished Tor
What somebody else mad done. that LII
ungton. and not satterfield. was In charge
OF bills. They then made three mouons-
10 set aside the verdict, FOR arrest OF
Judgment. and for new trial Solicitoi
Pou stated that these motions were made
as 10 Eet the d1t Aaiitg ~t4~ ~Ht@~'r -
before the Supreme Court.
Satterhelds counsel then argued mar
the weight OF evidence was contrary 70
law. az laid down by the Court that the
nrst count was drawn under the 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 10
the testimony; that there was error IN
the Judges charge 10 the jury.
Judge McIver denied all three mouons'
and Satterheld's attorneys excepted 70 his
rulings. 49,.
convicted on the first count which
charged misconduct without corrupt In
ter, and acquitted on the second count
which charged misconduct with corrupt
intent .
,rnpose any sentence OF imprisonment, as
Satterfield had not been found guilty upon
the whole bill.
satterhelds attorney thanked the Soil
citor for this request, saying II showed
true manhood In not hitting a man aiter
he was down; that the costa Wouln De
very heavy, and that Satterheld was
poor.
eouns guilty OF negligence and careless
ness. and ought TO have known the con-
sequences. II ne had been convicted on
the second count he would certainly nave
had 20 be sentenced 10 imprisonne put
as Satterfeid was only guilty Of misoe-
neanor. he would impose tZsO nne ano
costs. The Judge said he had been tiou-
bled no little to know what 20 do.
SatterfieIds counsel then appealed 70
the Supreme Court. He was rot present
until after these proceedings terminated.
He was sent for came into court. ana
gave a 500 bond for his appearance -
the Supreme Court ~
The Brown care was then taken UP
Motions In arrest Of judgment and Tor
new trial were made, as In SatterneIn
case Judge NcIver denied both. II
defendant excepted.
The Judge then sentenced him to pay J.
one OF $50 and 10 work on the puolic
roads OF this county twelve months. he
ann aled 10 the Supreme Court. and gave
a NO bond for his appearance In the su-
nreme Court.