The professional world. (Columbia, Mo.) 1901-192?, 1903-12-25

HANNi q lIAlAiUAC - no w w Wv
bride people to do something that
ii wds impossible for him to per-
form.
According to the facts, all Of
which are admitted, money was
offered to influence the action of at
least two members Of this board
to do a thing which they were not
legally authorized TO perform. The
Supreme Court chooses to say that,
since there was no valid law au.
thorizing this particular act, there.
fore there was no bribery.
Doctor Chapman was an officer
of the city he did pass upon the
contracts asked for, in fact, but
not in law to all intents and pur-
poses, so far as both parties to the
transaction and the city are con
cerned, it was de jure as we'll as de
facto; therefore it is not a good
defense to allege that the ordinance
was invalid and the Official not
legally required to vote for cor
tracts asked under it.
Letters in the Kansas City
Times: In rendering the decision
of the Missouri supreme court in
the case of Edward Butler, convict.
ed briber. | have endeavored to
figure out some logically parallel
cases, calculated to extend the
benefits Of the Judiciary over a
wider field of usefulness. For X
ample, l thought of a possible de
cisiou like this:
BY TwIsTER J.
1T appears from the evidence
that the defendant, Rastus, was
operating at the time of his alleged
offense in a very dark storerOom,
to which his own unmitigated black
ness added density, and, further,
that tile actual act of illegality was
performed within the precincts of
a refrigerator which by reason of
its location and environment, must
have been still darker than the
room in which it stood, even with
the ebon Rastus supervened. The
defendant, rs shown by the evil
dence, vas possessed Of a large
family, an appetite tor chicken, and
nothing else of consequence. His
purP0Se in rayaging tts >r~affriggera =
tor of the complaining witness,
was TO secure therefrom a plucked
and dressed chicken with which to
calm the hunger of himself and
those dependent upon him. Owing
to the extreme darkness surround
ing the circumstances, only Il mea.
ger part Of which can be attributed
to the presence of the defendant
himself, his cropping hand seized
the carcass of a duck almost stimuli
taneously with the u~tterance of the
sound of hastily approaching foot
steps. Further exploration of the
refrigerator seeming, by reason of
this interruption, to be impracti-
cable, the hand of the defendant,
Rastus, chung to the duck and he
fled, only to be afterward captured
in company with the same. Thus
it appears that, meditating a chick
en-, the defendant nervously made
way with a duck, of the purloining
of which he had, in intent, been
absolutely innocent. The order of
the court is that the defendant,
Rastus, be discharged frsm Gus
tOdy."
That seemed rational enough at
first, but after some thought |
could see where some famous j~urists
could kick such a decision full of
holes. For example, how can
there be any reasonable analogy
between a case in which one crlmi
nal got the wrong fowl from the
right ice box, and one in which an
other criminal got the right fowl
from the wrong ice boxH
PUZZLED.
Plattsburg Leader: The people
of Missouri will regret to learn
that the supreme court has found
technical points of law such as to
justify the court, in its own opin-
ion, for setting Butler free. There
is a general belief that Butler was
guilty. The testimony of good
witnesses proved that he had offer
ed money to members of the board
of health for the garbage contract.
Il AI,A a. lo,ul "a