The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-01-16
GETS new TRIAL.
Bnrton's Case Is Remanded by
the Supreme Court.
Errors of the District Court
Are Pointed Out.
MARGIN OF ONE VOICE.
All That Stood Between the
Senator and Acquittal.
ChiefJ ustice and Justice Brewer
We're on His Side.

j
tor J. R Burton was decided by the
United States supreme court dismissing
the writ of certiorari to the circuit court
OF appeals for the eighth circuit and re-
versing the verdict of the district court 1or
the eastern district of Missouri on the
ground that the payments to Burton were
made in Washington. The district court
was therefore reversed and the case re-
manded for a new trial
The trial under the indictment charg-
ing Senator Burton with receiving a
cash payment at St. Louis viii proceed
Immediately at that place. The depart
ment OF. justice has not yet considered
the question of the trial place of the
indictment alleging payments in this
city 1t is possible the statute of limi-
tation may operate against it.
The opinion was handed down by
Justice Peckham, who took up the
various counts and recited the con-
clusions as we'll as the divisions of the
court as follows
Ffrst-The question Of the construc-
ton of the statute upon which this M
dictment was framed is the first to
arise. Upon that question majority
of the court. Mr.. Justice Harlan, Mr..
Justice Brown. Mr. Justice McKenna,.
Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr.. Justice
Day concurring, are of the opinion
that the facts alleged in the indict-
Inent show a case that is covered by
the provisions of the statute while the
chief justice, Mr.. Justice Brewer, Mr.
Justice 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 Indictment.
Second=Assuming that the statute
applies to the facts stated in the in
dictment, a further question arises
upon the general merits of the case
whether there was sufficient evidence
of guilt to be submitted to the jury
and a majority of the court, the same
justices concurring, are Of opinion that
there was. or are not prepared to say
there was not and the same minority
dissent from that view and are of opln-
ion that there was no evidence what
ever upon which to found q verdict
of conviction.
AS to the sixth, seventh. eighth and
ninth counts of the indictment the
court finds that the averments where
the different checks We're received and
paid were not true. The checks were
received in Washington, endorsed by
Senator Burton and deposited in the
Riggs National bank in that city This
constituted a payment in Washing
ton and not in St. Louis, where the
checks were afterward paid by the
Commonwealth Trust company and
the decision states that the court in
Missouri had no jurisdiction to try the
offense set forth in the counts of this
Indictment already referred to-"
There was no question that such
was the fact, and it was error to sub
init the matter to the jury to find
some other fact not supported by any
evidence.
Proof Not Disputed.
Continuing the decision says:
In the case at bar the proof was
not disputed. The checks were passed
tionally and without any special un-
derstanding. The custom of the bank
to forward such checks for collection
is plain custom to forward for col
lection for itself. The only liability of
defendant was on his endorsement
All this made a payment at Wash
1ngton and as result there was total
lack of evidence to sustain the sixth
seventh. eighth and ninth counts of
the Indictment The court should
have, therefore, directed a verdict of
not guilty ON those counts.
Ihis is not case of the COM
mencement of a crime in one district
and its completion in another. so that
under the statute the court in either
district has Jurisdiction. There was
no beginning of the offenSe. They nav
ment of the money was in Wash
ington and there was no commence
ment of the offense when the officer
Of the Rialto company. sent the
checks from St. Louis to defendant
The latter did not thereby begin All
Offense in Missouri
The court also found error in the
refusal of the district court to charge
as required when the Jury came mo
court and announced its ina biIftDr ~
agree. The failure to charge AZ
required was because the presiding
judge considered the points were OH
strucuOns of the law but if aftar
aDDRaTRn a hn
nearing upon the jury's Consideration
sion says.
Where Court Erred.
Balanced as the case was in the
minds of some of the jurors dOubts
existing as to the defendants guilt in
the mind of at least one it was a case
Where the most extreme care and can
non We're necessary in order that the
legal rights of the defendant Sbo,4I5
be preserved. Considering tbe attj
tuoe OF the case as it existed when
tne jury returned into court for fur-
theI instructions We think the defen-
uanl was entitled, as matter of LEGAL
right, to the charge asked for in re-
gard TO the previous reouests II I
charge which had been granted nv The
court uhoer the circumstances stated !
ana II was not matter of discretion
whether the jury should or should NOT
pc charged as TO the Character -of |
those requests. A slight thing NAV
nave turned the balance against the |
accused under the circumstance
shown by the record and he ought
not 70 have longer remained burdened /
with the characterize ton of his re-
quests to charge, made by the cour+ 4
and when he asked for the assertion 1
by the court of the materially and
validity OF those requests which had
already been made, the court ought
70 have granted the request"
Justice Peckham also took occa-
Eion to comment upon the fact that /