The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-01-29
FRIDAY EVENING,

4
ana to agree. on the part Of defendant
thal In consideration Of the payment b.
eacn OF the amount decided upon, sucl
person would be unmolested for the rnontl
OF december 1fi1this evidence be true
Ihe--defendant constituted Gardner, til,
seVeral detectives and police officers, hi!
agents to represent him, so that the effec
was the same as though he had indi
Vidually gone to each Of the parties anc
himself received the money. There is ne
evidence to the effect that any OF tn.
women acted Jointly or In pursuance O.
| common understanding or that funt
was made up by them, or on their behalf
Ihefe Is no evidence to justify the in
ference that Gardner was constituted the
agent OF the women, that he was to take
| their money, having been contributed tt
a fund for that purpose, and then fol
| them deliver it to defendant with the
understanding that in consideration
| thereof the parties to the contribution
should receive protection. Each person
making payment acted absolutely indie.
pendently Of every other. There was 8
separate and distinct agreement entered
| into with each person paying any money
| to the effect that such person would be
protected by reason of the payment re-
CARELESS of whether any others similarly
| situated paid any money or were pro-
tected.
This Is a complete answer to the second
proposition that acceptance by defendan MT
| Of the roll of bills constituted the ofrense
charged. and that 1t implied unity Of ac-
ton and unity Of intent. If this were true,
then guilt would depend upon the amount
PAID on each occasion by the agent to
his principal, and upon this theory, If
Gardner had paid over $50 every time he
received that amount then twelve sepa-
rate oHenses would have been committed.
The amount paid over to his chief by
Gardner at any one time was only an in
! cldent In the carrying out Of the scheme
or accepting brides from the different in
dlv1duals mentioned. and such payment
into the hands of defendant was imma-
terial under the evidence except as it
corroborated Gardner to show that he was
acting for his principal and had carried
out his Instructions. - :.
Precedent In Fred's Trial.
In state VS.. Anes, SO N. w. r. $50, the
chief OF policasW was indicted and convicted
for takingsa brihei in February, 1902, from
one of the women who's pads .morey Ito
Gardner in December. The state in that
case treated each payment for protection
as one offense, although perpetrated in
pursuance of a general scheme to receive
brides from all women similarly situated.
1t does not follow that because each
transaction constituted a separate offense,
that the same evidence would justify a
conviction for one offense based upon the
entire scheme, unless under an indictment
for conspiracy.
Defendant is not charged with conspir-
acy, and hence. the mere devising of the
scheme to collect money from different
persons engaged in the same unlawful
business, does not constitute the act or
transaction set forth in the indictment.
The distinction between the intent, pur-
eft f},,.,r
and the 1nd1yidualacts by means of which
It is carried into effect, is pointed out in.
Wallace VS., State: IS Fla, SAT. The evil
dence in the case before us no more es-
tabishes the commission of one offense
than does the counterfeiting of several
notes Of the same series, printed upon the
same plate, constitute one offense altho
perpetrated In, pursuance Of a general
scheme to raise money by counterfeiting.
Bliss VS.. United States, los Fed $685. In
contrast with the last CASE. see State VS..
Moore, 80 NV. R. 7S7, where this court
held that the uttering Of a forged mort
gage and forged note, which the mortgage
purported to secure, at one time and to the
same party, IS single act and constitutes
one offense. That case applies the general
rule that where there Is but one impulse,
altho carried into effect by different acts,
the whole constitutes but one transaction
and one offense. To the same effect the !
hcer of an insolvent bank from one par
tlcular person is not continuous offense
and a bar to prosecution for receiving !
money thereafterafrom another individual
at different time. They are different
transactions and constitute distinct Of
lenses, altho carried into effect pursuant
to purpose Of defrauding all depositors
who placed money In the insolvent insti-
tuition. State VS.. Burlingame, 48 s. w. R.
(Mo) 70. See also, State VS.. Jamison, 81 |
N. W. R. (Iowa) sos.
The state relies mainly upon the case of
United States VS.. Scott, u Fed. 213, where
the Indictment charged an internal rev.
enue collector with being unrawfully con-
cerned in soliciting a contribution Of |
money (naming the amount set forth in |
different counts), from divers persons who |
were officers of the United States govern
ment to the grand jury unknown, con-
trary to the statute which prohibited any
officer Of the, governing nts from soliciting !
Or receiving Of being i'll any MANNER coiI-a
cerned in the soliciting or receiving 81 any +
assessment, subscriptions or can tributiorl +
for any political. purpose, from any officer,
clerk or employe of the government. Upon
demurrer the Indictment was sustained. /
and 1t was held that it charged only one /
offense. An examination Of the author.
ties cited in the opinion discloses the factIS
hat the court based its decision upon Y
The principle that the offense charged; in T
volved but one transa ction. aItho such act
involved several similar violations OF the 7
aw with respect to several different PERI
sons. In other words, that defendant was
in an assessment or fund which
vas contributed to by parties unknown.
IN the words Of the court: ut is easy to
imagine circumstances under which the
defendant BY :oEe ace of reception, or by,E
'ne act Of Solicitation could have rssE
:etved or solicited cen tt ibutions from mary
persons. hl,s1ch case the foregoingyauaaE