The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-10-23

and acts Throughout with this original purpose,
he cannot be regarded accomplice and his
testimony is to be treated Just as the testimony
Of any other witness, and you should give IL
such weight as you believe IL is entitled to and
Judge It by the rules governing the crcdbility
Of witnesses.
II is claimed that Harris is a hribcr. This
would be true II he associated with the defend.
ant and others with a criminal intent and not
Tor the purpose OF detecting corruption. The
fact that party is deceived by a detective into
violation Of law Is no justification for the Of.
fence The question Is: Did the defendant so.
licit and receive the money to influence his
official aetion9 Nevertheless the crcdibility OF
the detectives is for you.
WE'RE THEY DIscREDITED.
The commonwealth also claims that several OF
the witnesses sworn for the defense have been
dscredited by certain facts disclosed by the
testimony, particularly the councmaniG wit
ncsses, Coleman, Coync and Calpin. Coleman
and Coyne were asked upon the witness stand
whether at any time they had solicited and re-.
ceived money from the witness Harris to in.
fluence their official action councilmen. This
they denied. You heard the testimony in con.
tradiction Of their denial. Coleman, according
to the testimony Of Harris, received $50 once
and $50 at another time. and Coync, as carly
as March 21 received 800. and arrangements
were made with Coyne to pay him 400 for
Use In the select council.
You have heard Calpn's testimony in which
he says that he made no intimaton to Harris
that he wanted money and you heard Harris
testimony that on May o. Calpin said that he
would not vote to reduce the tax until his suit
was settled, and that it would cost the COM
pany more than 5000. It Is for you to consider
this testimony in its bearing upon the crcdi
bility Of these witnesses. II you believe that
they solicited and received the money as testi.
fled by Harris, then you would have right to
conclude that such conduct Is not to their
credit as witnesses. But il you believe the
witnesses themselves, that they were not guilty Of
such corrupt practices, you should not It
against them.
Many witnesses have been sworn to testify 10
the good reputation for character Of the de.
fendant previous to his arrest in this case.
Good character or reputation is a substantive
fact and must be proven like any other fact
in the case. The terms character and reputation
are sometimes intcrchangeably used, but speak.
ing strictly, character consists of those qualities
which distinguish man from another, while
reputation is the opinion Of others with regard
to those qualities, in other words character
is what a man actually is. and reputation is
that which his neighbors and the people believe
him to be.
MATTER OF REPUTATION.
You must consider the evidence this point
anu nrSC ascertain whether the defendant mas
proven Il good reputation, especially in his Off.
cial character. This depends to some extent on
the knowledge the witnesses for character have
of his official acts and conduct. If you are sat.
isiicd that he has proven good reputation you
have a right to consider it with the other evil
dence in the case in determining the guilt or
innocence of this defendant Good character
may of itself by the creation of a reasonable
doubt produce an acquttal. II his good char.
actcr or reputation has not been proven to
your satisfaction in your judgment, then, Of
course, it has place in this case. II it has,
You must give it the weight that have nd
Gated.
The case is now in your hands. The rcspons
bility of n verdict rests upon you. The import
of the case, both to the defendant and the
community has been extensively commented upon
in your hearing. Let your verdict be such
will satisfy your own conscicnces and he in
accordance with the law and the evidence. II
you think this defendant should be acquitted
say so by your verdict; if You believe that he
is guilty it will be your duty to so return
him. If you acquit him you have to dispose Of
the costs If you convict him on either count
of the indictment you have nothing to say on
that question
In connection with his charge the
judge passed upon Il number of law
points presented by the defense.