The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-12-04
Looks Like a Disagreement in
the Morris Bribery Case.
OUT ALL DAY AND NIGHT
WITHOUT ANY PROSPECT OF
REACHING A VERDICT.
Principal Points in Judge RoIapp's
CharSe-Trial of Herman Bamber-
ger ON the Accusation of Agree
ing to Receive n Bride Begun
observation-disclosures Moves That
the Judge Instruct the Jury to
Return a Verdict OF Not Guilty.

Return a Verdict OF Not Guilty.
When the court convened yesterday
morning Judge Rolapp delivered his
charge to the jury in the Morris bribery
case and at 1920 the jury retired to its
room to consider the case. About :
o'clock they sent for copy of the
charge, which was furnished them, and
the afternoon wore along without any
| thing further being heard from Them I'M
til nearly o'clock. when they sent a
message by the bailiff to the court that
they had not agreed upon a verdict that
there was no prospect of their agreeing
| and that in fact. they were no nearer a
verdict than when they went out.
When court adjourned at $50 o'clock.
Judge Rolapp instructed Bailiff Booth that
II the jury agreed any time before $50
fact at the knutsford hotel and he would
go down and receive il, but his honor
was going to Ogden and would leave the
hotel at $50, and if a verdict had not
then been reached the bailiff was in
structed to make arrangements to keep
| the jury all night and until 10 o'clock
this morning, when court would recon-
Vene- His honor ordered that the Jurors
be kept in q warm room and given bed
ding and bed clothing and served with
meals.
- 10 an early nOur tnlS morning the
jurors had not agreed upon verdict and
the likelihood is they will be discharged
when court convenes, as there is little
prospect of their arriving at unity of
opinion now. 1t was said last night that
they stood six for acquittal and two for
conviction.
THE CHARGE.
In his charge Judge Rolapp. after stat
ing the case clearly and concisely, gave
the statutory definition of a bride that
every executive officer or person elected
or appointed to an executive office, who
bride, upon any agreement or under
standing that his vote, opinion or action
upon any matter than pending or which
may be brought before him in his official
capacity, shall be Influenced thereby, is
guilty of a felony"
BY the statutes of this state the term
"bribe" signifies any money, goods, right
in action, property, thing of value or ad-
vantage, present or prospective, or any
promise or undertaking to give anything
of value, asked, given or accepted, with
corrupt intent to influence uniawfully the
person to whom 1t is given in his action.
vote or opinion in any public or Official
capacity.
of proof that the defendant had previous
ly been tried and acquitted for The crime
he was now on trial for was upon the
defendant and if they found he had been
so tried and acquitted they should bring
hand if they decided that this was
different offense from what he had been
tried for before and If they believed.
from all the evidence in this case. beyond
a reasonable doubt, that Morris was an
executive officer of Salt Lake county and
had agreed to accept bride as charged
in the indictment they should nnd
verdict of guilty.
ture, his honor said, could only be con-
sidered as evidence in this case for the
whether the defendant had mouYe 1or
agreeing to receive the alleged bride;
The defendant cannot be convicted of
the offense charged in the Indictment on
any conclusion or belief that Hayken
may have cheated the county in the sale
of the furniture and fittings or that he
NAV have charged and received therefor
an exorbitant price or that the defendant
as such county selectman may nave PAID
or voted to be paid large and eXorDit-
ant price for the furniture.
HAYKEN AN ACCOMPLCE-
In reference to the testimony of Martin |
Hayken the court instructed that Hayken |
was an accomplice with the defendant IN
Under the penal code of Utah it is pro
vided that a conviction cannot be nad /
on the testimony of an accomplice unless
he is corroborated by other eVlashce
the testimony of the accomplce TENDS /
to connect the defendant with the com
mission of the OffenSe. Inc cOrrODOrdIOH
is not sufficient if it merely shows the /
connected with the COM
mission of the offense. The testimony of
an accomplice should be received with |
great caution and distrust. The DEFEND /
ant cannot, therefore, be convicted on /
the testimony of Martin Hayken alone.
The Jury were therefore instructed that
II they found there was other evidence in /
the case independent of the evidence o. /
Hayken that tends without the aid of the 4
testimony of Hayken TO convict the De
PENDANT with the commission OF the /
crime charged in the Indictment, they |
were authorized to consider the tesu- I
mony of Hayken TO determine its weight /
and probability upon the whole evidence
in the case, to determine the quit or IN
nocence of the defendant.
The defendant having tesuned IN ms
own behalf, his honor charged the jury,
that they had no right to disregard his
testimony BECAUSE he is the defendant
and charged with the commission of a
crime. The law presumes him to be in
nocent until proven guilty beyond a
doubt, but in determining the
question of the defendants credibillty
and the weight that should be. given 10
his testimony the jury were instructed
to take into consideration the SITUATION
Of the defendant and the interest ne may
have in the verdict in this case
II they believed the defendant guity
beyond a reasonable doubt they were IN
structed to return a verdict of guilty,
but the burden of proof was on the pros
scution.