Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-01-16
DISTRICT COURT REVERSED.
Payments to Hin We're Made 10
Washington Opinion by JUS.
tce Peckham,

payments to Burton were made in
Washington The district court was
therefore reversed and the case re-
manded for new trial.
The opinion was handed down by
Justice Peckham, who took up the
various counts and recitcd the concIu-
sions as we'll as the divisions Of the
court AS follows;
"l'irst tho question Of the construc-
ton of the statute upon which this IN
dictment was framed Is the first 10
arise, Upon that question n majority
OF the court tMr Justice Harlan, Mt.
Justice Brown, Mr. Justice McKenna,
Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice
bay concuuing), are Of the opinion
that the facts alleged IN the Indictment
show a case that Is covered by the pro-
visions Of the statute while the chief
justice, MIR. Justice Brewer, Mr. jus
tice White and the writer OF this
opinion dissent from that view and
are OF the opinion that the statute does
not cover the case as alleged In the m
dictment.
Second, assuming that the statute
applies To the facts stated IN the in
upon the general merits OF the case,
whether there was sufficient evidence
Of guilt 60 be submitted to the jury,
and majority Of the court che same
justices concurringl are of The opln-
lon thai stheree sses, .oF are not prepared
to say there was not, and the same
minority dissent from that Wow and
are OF the opinion that there was ma
evidence whatever upon which Ia
found a verdict Of conviction
As to the sixth, seventh, eighth aud
ninth counts Of the Indictment the
court finds that the aNeunents where
the different checks We're received ana
paid were not true. TIE checks were
received In Washington, endorsed by
Senator Burton ana deposited I'm tho
Riggs National bank I'm this city. This
constituted payment In Washington
and not I'm st. Louis, where the checks
were afterward paid by the Common
wealth Trust company and the decision
states that the court I'm Missouri had no
jurisdiction to try the offenses set forth
i'm these counts ~ the indictment all
ready referred TO-" There was no quCs-
ton that such was the fact, and 1t was
error 10 submit the matter TO the jury
to md some other fact not supported
by any evidence.
Continuing, the decision says:
in the case ut bar the proof was
not disputed The checks were passed
To- the credit Of defendant uncondition-
ely and without 'any special under
standing. The custom OF the bank 90
forward such checks for collection Is
a plain custom to forward for collection
for itself,
The only liability Of defendant was
ON his endorsement, All this made a
payment at Washington. and as a re-
suit there was total lack Of evidence
10 sustain the sixth, seventh, eighth
and ninth counts of the Indictment. Tho
court should have, therefore directed q
verdict Of not guilty on those counts
This is not case NJ the commence
ment of a crime IN one district and IT'S
completion is another, SO that under tho
statute the court I'm either district has
Jurisdiction. There was no beginning
Of the offensc in Missouri The pay'
ment Of the money was I'm Washington,
and there was no commencement OF
that offense when the officer OF tho
Rlalto company sent the checks from
ST. Louis to defendant The latter did
not thereby begin an ofenso In MIS-
souri,
The court also found error In the re-
required When the jury came into court
and announced us inability to agree,
The failure 10 charge as required was
because the presiding judge considered
tho points were distractions OF law,
but IL afterwards appeared that the
points had bearing upon the jury
consideration OF the case. on this point
the decision says
balanced as the case was I'm the
minds Of some Of the jurors, doubts eN-
is'fg as TO the defendants guilt IN the
mind of at least one, It was a. case
where the most extreme care ana eau
ton were necessary I'm order that the
legal rights OF the defendant should be
preserved. considering the attitude Ut
The case as II existed when the jury re-
turned into court for further lnstruc-
lions. we think the defendant was en-
titled as matter OF legal right 10 the
charge asked for IN regard 20 the pre-
vious requests to charge, which had
been granted by the court under the
circumstances stated. and II was not n
matter of discretion whether the Jury
should. or should not be charged az
to the character OF those requests, A
slight thing may have turned the ball
ancc against the accused under Clrcum-
stances shown by the record and he
ought not TO have longer remained bul"
dened with the Characterization OF his
requests 10 charge made by the court
and when he asked for the assertion by
the court OF the materlality and va
lldity OF those requests which had al
ready been made, the court ought TO
have granted the request
Justice Peckham also took occasion
10 comment upou the fact that when
the the Jury came I'm with disagree
ment the Judge asked how the jury
stood. saying that the practise was one
'Shlch should not be encouraged.
The trial under the indictment ch1rg-
ing Senator Burton with receiving "a
cash payment at 81, Louis Will proceed
Immediately az that place, The depart
ment Of Justice has not yet considered
the question Of the trial place OF the I'M
dlctment, alleging payments in this
city. 10 Ia possible the statute OF llmi-
tations may operate against Il.