The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-10-05

stitute any part Of such period of three
years
The question OF whether the defendant
In this case has been an inhabitant OF TINS
State IS not for your consideration. Il
after deductInC from the time which the
jury finds and believes from the evidence
has elapsed between the commission by the
defendant Of the offense OF bribery. or at
tempted bribery. II they find and believe
from the evidence under the other instruc-
tions given that either ofterse was com
uitted by the defendant. and the finding ~
the indictment April :. iets such parts
Of said time. II any. as the jury may ira
and believe from the evidence. and under
the other instructions given the defendant
was not usually within this state less th-h
three. years remained. then the prosecu-
tIon Of this State under this Indictment y
not barred by the statute OF limitations
ABODE IN NEW YORK
FINES RESIDENCE THERE.
..1f from the evidence you find and be
lieye that the defendant. after the commits
sicu OF the offense charged IN the insiict-
ment or OF attempted bribery III you hni
that either Cffense was committed by nlnl
went 10 the city OF New York ana there en-
gagged in business. and there had petina-
nent office and place Of business and there
orctIpIed auarrnents before and after his
marriage which were engaged by the year.
having them as an established abode IN New
York then YOU may fiud from such iacts
that during the period Of time he was so IN
New York he was not usually rtslnent
within the State OF Missouri. although YOU
may also believe and find from the evi-
deuce that he had home In Kansas City.
where his children resided. ahd to which he
occasionally Tefurnedi and In this c'nnec-
ton you may. consider any statements II
declaration Of defendant as TO his place
OF residence which may have been proven II
"a
..If, on the other hand. you fnd that he
maintained his home and family ana did
business in Kansas city. Missouri. and MS
visits or stay in New YORK CITY. Whethet
for business or pleasure. were mercy udn,
sitorv or temporary. and that during all
the time Of his visits there he kept ana
maintained his horne and family and pace
rf business In Kansas city. and that his
ehsence. at any time or times from KAN
-as CITY was only temporary OF casual III
INC carrying on OF furthering o. projecting
business interests recurring his presence
elsewhere. then no such absence would JUS
tff,- vow n finding that while he continued
r. was not usually resident within this
state. and you Will acquit defendant
In considering this question and defense
~ tbc statufs Of limitations the jury VIII
consider only the evidence admitted bearing
on the question whether or not defendant
bes hsen during the time In question. usu-
alfv resilient Rithin this state and II faey
arI fhaf the Urrsert1tton OF ihlS stale -
barred by limitation. then they Will acqui'
the defendant
TESTIMONY OF TTHoFF
NAY STAND ALONE.
..You are further instructed that you are
n liberty 20 convict the defendant upon the
uncofrobaratcd testimony of an accomplicc
alone IL YOU believe the staten snts as given
Hy such aeccr1plice. aEc his testimony be
tue: II won further believe that the state
1nc.ts Of fact sworn to ~ the witness df
any viii establish the guilt Of the defend
ant The testimony % an accompiicel In
the crimc-thst s. person who ACTUALLY,
commits o. participates In the crimes nd-
mlssiaie Yet the evidence Of IN accompsice
In lie crime when not corrObcrated By some
perxoa OF pers ns not implicated In the
crime IS TO matter material 10 the issue.
that Is matter connecting the defendant
with the commission Of the crime charged
Z against him. olsht 10 be received with
great caution by the jury. and the jury
ought 10 be fuiiv satisfied of its truth be-
fore they SHOULD convict the defendant on
sucii testimony.
You are further instructed that the in
d.ctmcnt contains the formal statement o.
the charge. but is not TO be taken as any
evidence Of defendants guilt The law pre-
sum.s the defendant 10 Be innocent. and
this presumption continues until & has been
overcome BY evidence which establishes
suili u your satisfaction and beyond rel-
sonable doubt: and the burden Of proving
MS suit rests With the STATE. II. however.
this presumption has been overcome by the