Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-01-12
CLERK SATTERFIELD
He Is Found Guilty Of Negligence In
Assignment Act Matter.
CASE AGAINST J. W. BROWN.
His Counsel Claim That lie Il Not
an Oniccr, and Therefore Is Not
LiabIc-This Their Whole An
swer.


RALEIGH, n. C.. January 1.-THE trial
OF S. j. Satterfeld. late Clerk of the
House OF Representatives, ended to-day
with arguments by r.. Il. Purnell. of his
counsel, and Siate-Solicitor Pou. who at
tackled Sattcriield's statement that the
bill had never left his possession. and
said II was false. II the statement Of
Miss Daisy Branson was true that she
was given the identical bin from the
Enrolling Clerks Office 10 copy. lie said
that II Miss Branson, RepreseT tative
Smith, and William Z. Christian told the
truth Satterfeld was surely guilty on
both counts Of the Indictment. and the
bill was proved 10 have been falsely
stsrnped as to the date OF tabling.
Judge McIver charged the jury upon the
FIRST count that II Il was satisfied that
Satteriield had the bill In his possession
after It had been tabled. and that 1t was
found in Browns possession. 1t would
be circumstantial evidence tending TO
show negligence on Satterhelds part. II.
on the contrary, the jury found that the
bill was stolen or taken from his Office
without his knowledge or consent or
fault. he was not guilty. He charged
upon the second count that If the jury
was satisfied that he knowingly delivered
the bill TO the Filing Clerk for enrolment,
knowing it had been tabled, he was
guilty Of misdemeanor
The jury took the case at 2 o'clock.
and soon after 6 returned a verdict of
guilty on the first count, which charged
him with negligently and wilfully fall
ing TO perform the duties Of his office in
IL 81 al IA
which had been tabled, and Of not guilty
on the second count. which charge him
with corruptly procuring its enrolment.
The jury on the first vote stood eight
TO four for conviction on the second
charge.
The case OF the State against Enrolling
Clerk j. W. Brown. for permitting the
enrolment Of the BILL was taken up this
afternoon. The main question at issue
was whether the bill enrolled was the
original bill
Miss Daisy Branson identified the origi-
nal bill as the one given her by the
Enrolling Clerk, or one of his assistants,
and copied by her.
Browns counsel admitted that there
was no receipt on Browns book for this
bill and some others given her.
Miss Branson said she and Brown read
the bill and her copy 10 compare them.
X. L. Smith identified the bill as the
one tabled the night OF March 18th,
though stamped as tabled March 18th.
Half dozen witnesses. some promin-
ent, and among them Speaker Walser,
testified TO Browns good character. Wal
ser also testified to the good character Of
Satterfieid.
State-Librarian Ellington testified as TO
the search for the bill, and his finding
IL. and said there was no other bill at
all like A..
The counsel for Brown here sprang a
surprise by declaring that Brown was
not an officer, and therefore not liable,
and that the State had introduced no
evidence 10 prove he was an officer;
that while they admitted he was Enroll
ing Clerk, he was not an officer and
could not be convicted, and that this
was their answer TO the whole bill OF
indictment.
The court took a recess until Monday
morning.