The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-12-10
CASE REVERSED:
PRISONER is DISCHARGED
Continued From Page One.

let by the Board of Public improvements.
because the gathering, removal and reC;uc-
non 10, or Sarbase was not public Work with ,l
conviction of defendant cannot stand. be.
cause that ordinance WAS not approved
ny the Mayor until September u. 1901. as
documentary evidence. It will not be
| questioned that there was 10 '.a'uta of
the State of Missouri which r-o'lirct Doc.
ter CHAPMAN. as a member - ho 1.nard
| OF Health. to vote or pass lpnn defend :.
! ants bid for the contract Tor til" dispo sal
of all Stops. ofraI. sarbag.. et,.. OF The
city OF ST. Louis by the M,-Z ,-n:css.
on him by the common law.
The state is. therefore. re,e-ate1 to an
ordinance of the. city of St. Lo"is- No
nance No. 2o4I6. approved by the Mayor
September H. 1901. Now. II the defendant
made his proposition to give Doctor Chap
man $3.50 If he would vote for defendants
ordinance was approved by the Mayor. as
required by the Charter. 1t ,s obviouc that
defendant was not guilty 1t an attempt
to bribe. for the reason that thAre was
no ordinance which made II tha duty Os
Doctor Chapman to vote or pass upon de-
iendant.s ~ Ipout this proposition there
by the Charter of st. Louis the Mayor
Is part of the law-making or ordinance,
ena , ing power Of the city government.
is essential to its validity. unless the ordl-
nance is passed over his veto. Sections q,
q and 25 article 3. Charter of st. Louis.
Eichenlaub VS.. City Of st. Joseph. 10 NO..
III. in fact the alleged attempt to bribe
was committed by defendant after the
Council o!..n and House Of. Of Delegates had
approval by the Mayor, there was no or
dinance requiring the Board Of Health to
make any contract for the removal or re
respect thereto which could be brought
before Doctor Chapman as member Of
the Board Of Health In his official capac-
made before the approval of the ordinance
by the Mayor? On this point there was one
witness only--Doctor Chapman himself.
himself and defendant at the interview.
He was asked II he saw the defendant on
or about the 10th or 18th of September.
dso He answered that he did and then
and himself.
"'rhe approval Of ordinance No. 2A76
cation Of the Mayor to the Council on that
day:
him was made on the sixteenth day Of
September. 1901: It is true that Doctor
Chapman says in his 'examination in chief
Sixteenth na OFT Of septemb Ss on 1851. but his
cross-examnation discloses beyond the
peradventure Of a doubt that 1t was on
Monday. the 18th of September. 1901. If
lieved and he is vouched for by the State.
and certainly we have no desire to ques-
ton it. the offer Of defendant could not
have been. made later than the 18TH. for
while he persisted in saying ON or about
the 18th of September. 1901 when ques-
,tioned as to his interview with defendant.
Se tod II lis ~ fens Eel Of M ia M
he positively fixes 1t on the evening OF
September 1s. 1901. or the Monday preced-
issi WI Whie eSe was the 18th l u 'e'
Until the ordinance was passed ana
approved. to-wit. September u. 1901. there
was no law by which the letting OF the
Health. Obviously, then. the burden was
on the State to prove. beyond a reasonable
doubt, that the offer to bride was made
Mayor and testimony merely to- the eff
18th of September. 1901 would not meet
further and established beyond all. cayil
that the offer was made on or before the
18th of September. 1901. and the records OF |
na nan s'' was not approved until the nth Of
September. 1901, 1t is evident that the state |
failed to make case. even Il the ordi.
can only be accounted for: however. by |
the third instruction given to the jury on |
behalf Of the state.
DEFECT IN INSTRUCTION.
1.-THE jury was not advised in this I'm
struction that the ordinance was not !e- |
gally passed until the approval Of the |
Mayor on the seventeenth day Of Septem-
Der. 1901
..This was a matter of law which the
Court should have told the jury In plain |
terms. On the contrary. the jury might |
well have concluded that II the ordinance
was passed by the Council and House OF
thereafter It might become the duty OF
the Board of Health to advertise and re-
ceive bids. 1t would be sufficient. even
though not approved by the Mayor. Thus
the Jury was not required to hnd that the
alleged offer of defendant was made TO
Doctor Chapman after there was a law or
valid municipal ordinance in force. by
which the matter might be brought before
Doctor Chapman In his official character
pr capacity. but until then, as We have
seen. no such duty existed, and hence the
claim that the jury found as fact that
he offer was made after the ordinance
was approved, is unsupported by the facts
in evidence.
1--WE have thus given expression TO our
views upon this Gauge. az disclosed by the
record before us, which results In the final
conclusion that the learned and esteemed
rial Judge should have either sustained
close of the States case. given the per-
,mptory instruction to find the defendant
not guilty as requested by counsel for ap-
1ellant.
'.The Judgment in this cause will be re-
versed and the defendant discharged.
Can't. =. J., and Burgess. j.. concur.
(Signed) JAMES D. FOX.