The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-12-19
GANTTS OPINION MAKES
CLEAR LAWS ON BRIBERY
Continued From Page One.

tuted the true consideration for the 900 OF
were mere pretense and sham.
1t was competent to show that Stock regarded
them as worthless on his part, and II equally
open to Meysenburg under any charge impeach-
ing the honesty Of the transaction to show they
We're valuable. Greenleaf Ev. "a Ed) s7s.
This brings US. to the question OF the COM
potency OF the evidence offered by defendant TO
Of he G NJ to dS
on the day before the transfer OF the shares TO
Of the members OF which were also Suburban
@ sad M
gated yaipe at as Least It was not proposed to
have done So that Mr.; Judson had advised him
s HI to of h sns oF. @
ehs a @ pTse a4 b y9s 9 M this
ms SS Ra?sS i5s S5sRalss
Kinioe6 syndieats could have been enforced in
ths courts S ~ but the 4, advice Of counsel would
aS he gaHSe ia use sss
resistance . It was the offer Of a self-servins
missble. State vs. Hoicomb. S. No SIS
Of ans fes
by defendant to him. OF course he was com
to to sfass shas y OF eayass
though the shares had no marketable value as
sets OF the eemPany. real yaiue This i has ' long
VS. LunssF Company. lis Mo: Hewitt vs.. Steele.
sS aG ssas e
shares Of stock toe in the Electric Company in 1895.
Of the Kioeh t syndsa,s Iea AG % the
value Of the stock. Mr.. stark answered he only
shen Of judge Kru@ nor to kndh If 9h
the To w5 ths had oaSd n his
had compromised with the gentlemen Composing
he he did his a sas
counsel answered it was. Thereupon the court
on the propo
e,her eifon that proof re- Of What stark Brady
a compromise. after Threatened litigation from
IT easd usd edfred .as kn0 Mhs II b.
been soS decided S by this court that where shares
S as Fesa or tsue ths dRy "
yet what nhs hs
been able to get for his shares in a threat Of
be made the measure of value Of the shares Of
While i !. true tina. the price of real estate
may be shown by proof Of sales Of similar lands
competent. it has never bee ruled that sf Wha; 4;
one owner received for his land as a compromise
Too many consideration. enter into the elements
ff q hs,n cG,mpFomss p, % make one mans settlement
aho sise9nnsSea .Ss with any threae ed gaton and
would Been shes S5sF ssh bas
offer was properly rejected A '''e
u.
We agree that the instructions Nos and IL
asked by defendant should have been given If
they were not already substance It was for
the jury to find whether the transaction WIS an
honest one or a mere cl ak brihe But the
courts instructions Nos. ). 6 and fully covered
the law contended for in defendants Instructions
and II, and hence no error committed by
refusing them.
The evidence that the bill No. A was pending
in the council from October 9Th. 1870. TO Feb
ruary s;h, 1891. was cympet, 10 sh5w the bill
was pending at the time OF the transactions be-
tween Meysenburg and Stock February . 1901
As TO the order Of the court requiring defend
ant TO- sit apart from his counsel all that ap-
pears IN the record so far as we can discover is
the following; Mr.. Folk: This is the case Of
the State of Missouri Emil A Meysenburg
defendant. This Is the defendant
THE Court: Take a seat there
counsel
Court: Take a seat there"
There Is nothing before to indicate the
place pointed out by the word there"
No objection was made and no exception saved.
Nothing to show that defendant not accord
ed the full benefit Of counsel which every defend
ant under our Constitution and laws is guaran-
teed. Upon the record. which Is all we can look
to. we discover ground for imuuting a denial
of defendants rights in this respect.
JAS 3 CAN'T. ].
Burgess. G. J.. concurs in my ews except that
he thinks the court should have given instruc-
tions and II asked by defendant.