The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-11-14
FULL TEXT OF INSTRUCTIONS
TO THE JURY in THE BUTLER TRIAL

~ I'LL JUN
OFFERED BY THE STATE.
The instructions offered by the State and
accepted by the court were as follows:
The court instructs the jury:
l. That. under the laws of the State os Mis-
souri,. the City OF St. Louis is a municipal COR
poration OF the State of Missouri and that its
legislative power is vested in a Council and =
House OF Delegates. composing the Municipal As
semby Of said city, and that under the Charter Of
the said city the Board OF Health OF said city
10 composed OF six members. to-wit: the Mayor.
the President Of the Council. Police Commits
sioner. the Health Commissioner and TWO regu-
lar practicing physicians: said physicians being
appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by :he
Council of said city.
2 II you believe and nnd. from the evidence.
that Doctor Henry NJ. Chapman was appointed
ss member OF the Board of Health Of said city
by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council for
a tenn Of four years from and after the twenty
NTH day OF April 1899 and was qualified by
OF April. 1899. then you will nnd that the ssmc
Henry II Chapman was public official Of the
City Of st. Louis during the month OF Sept>m>
ber. 1901.
Louis numbered 204i6. mentioned in the indict-
ment and admitted in evidence III you believe
and nnd from the evidence that such ordinance
was passed by the Municipal Assembly and ap-
proved by the Mayor. the said Board OF Health
were authorized, and II became their duty. with
in fifteen days after the approval Of said ordi-
nance. under the supervision of the Register OF
said city. to cause to be inserted Tor i've days in
the newspapers doing the city printing of said
city an advertisement asking for sealed proposals
for the sanitary disposal OF all sops. offal. gar
bage. vegetable matter and animal matter OF said
city. by the Merz process: and that the said
Board Of Health was authorized by . vote of .
majority Of Its members TO enter into 4 contract
for the sanitary disposal Of all such slops offal.
rho tohl ND amin al nf
said city by tho Merz process within thirty days
after the date when said ordinance was approved
by the Mayor aforesaid: and that under the
provisions Of said ordinance said Board OF Health
was authorized to award such contract to the
best bidder therefor. and at the same time had
the right and privilege to reject any and all
bids, or sealed proposals. which might oe maze s'
garbage. vegetable matter and animal matter OF
said city by the Msrz process.
l. II you believe and find from the evidence
bAyond Q reasonable doubt that the ordinance
Aforesaid, numbered :o4s, was passed by the
Municipal Assembly OF said city OF 81. Louis by
q majority vote Of the said Council and House
Of Delegates respectively. in the month OF Sep
tember 1901 and that It might therefore become
The duty Of the said Board of Health AZ afore-
sA.d to advertise for such sealed proposals a.
Aforesaid under the terms Of said ordinance. and
to enter into q contract as Aforesaid with the
best bidder therefor; and that Afterwards and
before any such sealed proposals were received
or such contract awarded by said Board OF
0eIe0Q6nt,
such ordinance had been passed by the Mu-
nicipal Assembly aforesaid: knew that 1t would
or might be the duty OF said Board Of Health
to advertise for such sealed proposals as afore-
said: knew that the said Board OF Health would
or might be authorized to let such contract as
aforesaid to the best bidder therefor: knew that
said Board OF Health would be authorized and
have the right to reject any or all OF any such
.ealed proposals: knew that said Henry II. Chap
man was q member Of the eaid Board Of Health:
knew that the st. Louis Sanitary Company was
. corporation and was about. or intended. to
make to said Board Of Health q sealed proposal
for the sanitary disposal of all slops. onal. gar
hage vegetable matter and animal matter Of said
city, under the Aierz process In accordance with
the provisions of said ordinance: and that the
defendant. Edward Butler. at any time between
the passage Of said ordinance and the opening
Of any such sealed proposal. at the said city
of st. Louis. did unlawfully, corruptly and
feioniously offer and propose TO pay to the sale
Henry NJ. Chapman the sum Of - 500. or any
other sum Of money with the intent then and
there unlawfuliy and corr.ptly TO influence the
opinion. decision and vote of the said Henry II.
CHAPMAN. as a member of the said Board Of
Health and In his official capacity and character
a. n member Of the said Board OF Health. for
and In favor Of q sealed proposal Of said st.
Louis Sanitary Company. to award such con-
tract to said st. Louis Sanitary Company for
the sanitary removal Of all sops offaI garbage.
matter and animal matter Of the city
Of St. Louis by the Merz process under the pro-
visions Of said ordinance: then you should nnd
the defendant guilty Of an offer and attempt to
br1be officer. as charged In the Indictment;
and unless you 40 believe and find beyond rea-
,orable doubt, II Is your duty to acquit him.
5. II the jury find and believe from the evil
dence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defend
ant offered and attempted to bribe the said
Henry NJ. Chapman at the time and place and
In the manner and form charged In the ind!ct-
ment and explained in the preceding instruc-
,ion then you should return n verdict Of guilty.
although you may lind from the evidence that
the said Chapman refused to accept such bribe.
g. II you md, the defendant guilty of an
offer and attempt to bribe officer as charged
In the Indictment. YOU will assess his punish
ment at Imprisonment in the Penitentiary for
term Of not less than two ncr more than five
years: or at Imprisonment in the county Jail for
4 term not exceeding one year and q fne OF not
less than one thousand dollars.
4 Felon,orsly. used In the indictment and
in; these instructions means wickedly and against
the ad1onit.on of tn. law. Corruptly as used
in the Indictment and in these Instructions
means wrongf.lly: IL is the doing Of an act |,
with official duty and the rights OF others.
Q. The jury are further instructed that the |
estimony Of the witness. Doctor Albert Merrill |
II believed by the jury). does not prove tend
o prove that the defendant committed the Of |
ense charged in the Indictment. but is to be |
only in determining the intent OF
by any words, acts conduct in |
elation to the charge against him IN the In |
ictment. in 30 far as any such words. scss or |
nnduct have been proven by the evidence In
he case to the satisfaction of the Jury beyord
essonahlA doubt.
.. The Jury are the sole judges OF the credi-
ity Of all the witnesses. and Of the weight and !
,alue TO be given 20 their testimony. Ih oe- |
ermining such cre1ibility. weight and valu, |
ou will take into consideration the character. !
4 the witness, his or her manner on the stand. !
lis or her interest df any In the r-suit Of toe i
nal his or her relation to or feelings toward
Ne defendant or the prosecuting witness. the |
or improbabiity Of his or her state /,
nents as well n all the facts and circum- ,
tsncss in evidence. And II you believe that any
ritness hrs willfully sworn falsely as to aniv !
1sterial matter IN controversy. you: are at lib ,
rty . TO discharge the whole or any part OF .
uch witnesss testimony.
10, The Indictment In. this case 10 merely the
urmal charSs preferrsd .asainst~ the defeadAas