The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-11-14

and does not prove tend to prove any o
its allegations.
The law presumes the defendant 10 be innocsnt
and this presumption continues until ove-com
by evidence which establishes his guilt TO YOU
satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt. an
the burden Of proving his guilt rests with TIL
State. II Of his guilt you not satisfied b,
the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt you
an aoauittal on that ground alone. ought to b
a substantial doubt. touching his guilt. and no
. mere possibility of his innocence.
OFFERED BY THE DEFENSE.
Buffers attorneys presented these ins.ruc
tions which were accepted by Judge Hook
aday:
/. Statement Of alleged offenss.
2. The commission OF the offense depends upor
the proof beyond a reasonable doubt of two facts
the establishment of both Of which by the Stat,
is essential. and without such establishment o
both Of which there can be conviction. These
facts are: First. the offer of a sum Of money &c
Henry NJ Chapman: secondly. the intent. oil
special purpose by such offer TO secure or infiu
ence his vote indicated: and unless both oi
these facts have been proven by the State beyond
q reasonable doubt. there must be accuittal
The court further instructs you that TO have
proven that money was offered to Chapman be
fore the contract was voted will not have
even raised presumption that II offered
with the necessary guilty interest. becauee both
OF the facts must have been proven. and the
proof OF the one does not raise a presumption as
to the other The State Is required to have proven
that money was offered before the vote. and was
so offered with intent to influence such vote.
Even II the jury ind that money offered
after, tho vote had been gwen and not before.
still there be no conviction. 1t II wholly i'm
material what the defendant did after Cha pman
gave his vote. Is proving the charge ia the in
dictMent:' which scan only have been 'estabaishsd
certainty indicated. that before the vote vas
given money was offered with corrupt intent 20
secure influence such vote.
J. For the defendant. practically same as that
offered by State regarding testimony OF xerrell-
4. The mere fact that the defendant may have
offered a present of s., 500 to the witness Chap
man. and that bid had been made or was
about to be made by the sanitary company for
the reduction Of garbage under the ordnance Of
the City of 81. Louis, read In evidence. 10 In
sufficient In itself to establish the defendants 8
guilt under the Indictment in this case.
S. Although the jury may believe from the
evidence that the defendant offered present Of
32.5Oo or any ether sum Of money to the witness
Chapman. and even though they may further
tract for the reduction of garbage In the City of
st. louis was awarded to the sanitary company
and that said Chapman Understood 1t to be for the
purpose Of inducing him to vote in favor OF
the Jury further md and believe from the evi-
dence that the defendant himself intended said
offer 4 bribe for the special purpose OF In
ducing Chapman to corruptiy vote In favor OF
awarding said contract to said company. then
the jury must return a verdict Of mot guilty
"a this case.
6. Corresponds. to states instruction that de-
fendant offered exactly Sz.5co for the purpose Of
inducing him to vote in favor OF garbage bil'.
Even II the Jury believe from the evidence thas
che defendant visited Chapman. after his vote
haE been given merely to reward him for having
given his vote. yet there can be no conviction
under the Indictment. The defendant must have
been proven. as elsewhere indicated in the In
structions given to have offered Chapman money
before such vote was given.
g. The court instructs the jury that the defend
ant 10 presumed to be innocent OF the charge
laid in the Indictment. and such presumption at
tends and surrounds the trial from beginning TO
end It can only have been overcome by proof
by the State. which excludes every other rea-
sonable hypothesis but that OF guilt
.. Even II the Jury believe from the evidence
that an oSfer Of money was made by defendant
to the witness Chapman, yet the defendant must
be acquitted unless the Jury are satisfied from
the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that
such offer was made before October ,, isu s
TO- You are further instructed that evidence has
been introduced in behalf of the defendant for
the purpose Of proving alibi: that Il. that tho
defendant was at some other place and was not
present at the time and place that the illegal at
Temp, to bribe Is sought to have been proven
to have taken place. You are instructed that an
aiibi Is a proper and legal defense for the con-
alteration Of the Jury. Unless. therefore. tho
fury 10 satisfied from the evidence beyond a
,sasonable doubt that the defendant was pres,nt
AZ the time and place the alleged attempt to brfse
witness Henry N. Chapman. AZ testified by
him to have taken place. then you will give the
the heneft OF such doubt and aQuit
nim.
You are further instructed that the defendant In
! competent witness In his own behalf and you
should not disregard his evidence because he Is
the defendant and testifying In his own fehatf. I
but vol should fairly and impartially iconstiec
md weigh his evidence by the same rule You
.pply to other witnesses In the case 4