The St. Louis Republic., 1903-10-14

liar attempt made b. the esfendant 10 bribe
him. st or near the same tins iEst the de-
fsndant attempted 20 tTibs DSet5r ChapulaL.
and under similar cirvun s-sn"ss. T. competent
A. a general rule. agidsnee in naartsTs CtEe-
than those charged IN the inIIsJmsn, ere IT,
admissible but in Gases Waere tie gui.t % the
party depends upon ths intent. purpose or Dc
sign with which tie act - d1le. eviitEce Cs
6 similar crime. 8 SouIetent fgr the IurEs -
% showing such inter In this AS the In
tent with which defr1isa: cngreJ DcCtgr
CHAIRMAN money Vas 4 ua..r- tnIt was ira-
terisI-
In state -. Williams Iss M. 80. the de-
fendant Was charged with attempting ic hate
a juror In the celebrated Taylor casa A. Gar
rollton- ON the trial IL was shown that the
defendant had attemp-: i - tribe cher mgui-
bcrs al the same time Th5 court held tEis
10 be cCmpytcnt-
In state vs. EaIch. lss No. ld8 defendant
was charged With robbinE a In Forest
Park in 81 Louis. By representing himself
60 be an officer. ESifenee Va5 held competent.
showing that another watch had been taken
from another man different evening under
similar circumstances
in state vs- PhiIIlps. 10 No. sls defendant
vas charged with stealing a COW. Evidence
vas held admissible 10 show that he also stole
three other COWS In the same manner and soid
them % the same person.
CONCERNING TINE
OF ATTEMPTED BRIBERY.
The point made by the defense that an onsr
20 brib- was made on September Is EsI. and
the ordinance was not signed By the Mayor
until September J.. ISI. and therefore there
can be no bribery. Is untenabls. In the nrst
place, Doctor CHAPMAN said the date OF the
offer OF the bribs was 'on or about septem-
Der Is. is5l- II further appears that a. the
time Of the attempted bribery the ordinance
had passed The ordnance was signed BY the
Speaker % the House OF Delegates on Septem-
b.r Il. issi. and by the President % the Council
on September -. 1901.
SuppOsirE. :or the sake OF arEumc-t that
the attempt Vas made on September Is. after
the ordinance vas passed. but before Il vas
signed. Il vas Just much attempted bribery
a. n Il was made on September Is. for Il was
. matter that might by Law l. brought before
the Board of Health. Furthermore. the date
Of the Onsr IS not matter to be considered
by the supreme Court. The disputed question
Of fact as 20 the date was submitted 10 the
jury under proper instructions from the court
and. there being substantial evidence % support
their finding. their verdict should not Be dis
turbed.
The arguments OF the prosecuting attorneys
contain nothing improper. What Vas said by
the Circuit Attorney as TO the value C news
papers In hghiinE corruption was In reply %
an argument On that subject b. ths AftorDeys
for the defense. All the cas- where srsu-
meHt was held TO be Injurious snd erroneous
have hen where prosecuting attorneys IN
iulgel IN invective or stated facts TO the jury
that were not In evidence. The rtatsm.nt q
Air. Marunsy as 20 the resources q the de-
,endant were justihed. as he states r. the A.
sument, by the testimony OF the teferdant I
himself concerning his ownership q stock n I
he sanitary company and hauling company.
The part % the Circuit A..orlev's argument ]
hat was objected @. and n which tire 'b- /
.ection vas not sustained. vas IN urging WIN /
he jury the importance % e1f1s-i1E the iau. |
hat this is proper argument has been - Sf:sn /
iecid-d By thIs court that 10 citation % au- i
hurity Is Necessary 70 sustain the proposition.
The other portions OF the argument that the 4
isfendants counsel criticised IN their brief |
we're not objected 20 al all on the trial. End. I
Y course. cannot be considered here. even ~ 1
hey would have been The subject % a valid
'hiection. which. we think. they are uc.