The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-05-30
III N CASE.
Bribery Trial On Which Detective
stahI,s Defense Is Based.


Since the defense of Detective Stahl is
based largely on the Banks case, a review
of that case is of interest at the present
time. Points as to the admission of evil
dence are of no especial interest.
John Banks was charged with having at
tempted to bride. on Nov. 5, 1900. ]. Wesley
Bridges, who had been designated as a clerk
of an election board in the sixteenth pre-
cinct of the First ward at the general cleo
ton of Nov. 6, 1900, by Offering to give him
$50 for one of the ballots to be used at that
election. Banks admitted that he offered
Bridges $50 for one of the ballots, but said
that, under an arrangement, he was only
endeavoring to ascertain whether Bridges
had a ballot in his possession at the time,
and if he had he was TO be arrested for vio-
lation of the election law, and that he
(Banks) did not intend to bride Bridges.
Banks further testified that Bridges had
told him he got ballots at the last election
and could do so again, and would do so il
he could deal with the right people and
make some money; He asked how much
this conversation to Mayor Taggart.
The court refused to allow Banks to tes-
tify that Mayor Taggart at the time had
said to him: Keep your ears open and
listen to him Bridges). and find out If he
has got a ballot If he has got a ballot we
will go after him and the ballot very quick.
and II IL is necessary TO have any money
for the purpose of having him disclose the
ballot 1 will furnish the money"
ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE.
The court also refused to allow Mayor
Taggart to testify to the above facts, to-
gether with the following additional facts:
That he told Banks he would have the man
arrested and told Officer Cramer, In the
presence of Banks, to get another officer
and go with Banks; that he gave Banks $50
10 buy the ballot IL necessary, but that
Banks must not receive the ballot: that
when the ballot was shown a signal must
be given the officers to appear and arrest
Bridges. Banks was found guilty as
charged, from which verdict he appealed
TO the Supreme Court. The Criminal Court
had overruled a motion to quash the affi-
davit.
The Supreme Court reversed the Criminal
Court on the ground that the affidavit was
insufficient and that the trial court had
erred in refusing the testimony of Banks as
TO what Mayor Taggart had told him to do,
and the testimony Of Mayor Taggart. The
Supreme Court said: ut was the right of
the appellant 10 have the jury fully in
formed in regard to all of the facts and cir
cumstances pertinent to the arrangement
or scheme under and in pursuance of which
he claimed to have acted in Offering the
money in question TO Bridges. Such evil
dence would not only include what he him.
self did in the matter. but, under the cir
cumstances. it would embrace what Tag
cart told him or advised him to do after
appellant had reported to him. as he stated
he did. in reference to and in the further
ance of the arrangement of the scheme by
which Bridges was TO be exposed and then
arrested. AS said. this was the scheme or
arrangement under and in pursuance of
which, as claimed by the appellant, he
thereafter acted in offering or promising
the money TO Bridges on the occasion in
controversy. The claim made by appellant
in explanation OF his action was to the
effect that when he had asceftained that
Bridges had in his possession on Nov. 5 the
ballot which he had promised 10 obtain or
procure, that then, under said arrange
ment between him and Taggart. he was TO
give n certain signal TO two policemen. who
would be stationed nearby. and that these
officers thereupon were to arrest Bridges
with the ballot in his possession. Appel
liant was certainly entitled fully 10 sustain
or make plausible his theory Of defense.
and IL the jury believed the evidence re-
lating. thereto TO be true, or If they enter
tanned a reasonable doubt of its truth. an
acquittal of appellant would necessarily fol-
low, for IL there was a reasonable hypothe-
sis disclosed by any evidence in the case
which was consistent with the innocence Of
the accused. 1t was the duty OF the jury to
acQuit him."