Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-01-16
Handed Down by Justice Peckham.

Handed Down by Justice Peckham.
The opinion was handed down by Justice
Peckham, who took up the various counts
and recited the conclusions as we'll as the
divisions of the court, follows:
First. The question of the construc-
ton of the statute upon which this indict-
nent 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 opin-
ion that the facts alleged in the indictment
show case that is covered by the provi-
sions 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 opinion that the statute
does not cover the case as alleged in the
Indictment.
Second. Assuming that the statute ap-
plies to the facts stated in the indictment,
further question arises upon the general
merits of the case, whether there was suiti-
cient 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 opinion
that there was no evidence whatever upon
which to found a verdict of conviction"
Payment in Washington.
AS to the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth
counts of the indictment, the court finds
that the averments where the different
checks were received and paid were not
true. The checks were received in Wash
ington, indorsed by Senator Burton and de-
posted in the Riggs National Bank in this
city This constituted payment in Wash
ington, and not in st. Louis, where the
checks were afterward paid by the Com
monwealth Trust Company, and the de-
cisiOn states that 1.-The court in Missouri
had no jurisdiction to try the offenses set
forth in those counts of the indictment al
ready referred to. There was no question
that such was the fact, and it was error to
submit the matter to the jury to find some
other fact not supported by any evidence
Continuing, the decision says: 'In the
case at bar the proof was not disputed.
The checks were passed to the credit of
defendant Internationally and without any
special understanding. The custom of the
bank to forward such checks for collection
is 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 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 verdict of not guilty
on those counts.
Court Without Jurisdiction.
This is not a case of the commencement
of crime in one district and it's compile
ton in another SO that under the statute
the court in either district has jurisdiction
There was no beginning of the offense in
Missouri. The payment of the money was
in Washington. and there was no COM
mencement of that offense when the officer
of the Rialto company sent the checks
from st. Louis to defendant The latter
N nhV o0in ~,
souri,
The court also found error in the re-
fusal of the district court to charge as re-
quested when the jury came into court and
announced its inability to agree. The fail
ure TO charge as requested was because the
presiding judge considered the points were
distractions of law, but it afterward ap-
peared that the points had bearing upon
the jurys consideration of the case. On
this point the decision says:
Error Of the Court
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 case where the most extreme
care and~caution were necessary in order
that the legal rights of the defendant
should be preserved. Considering the atti-
tude of the as it existed when the jury
returned into court for further instructions,
We think the defendant was entitled, as
matter of legal right, to the charge asked
for in regard to the previous requests to
charge, which had been granted by The
court under the circums tances stated and
it was not matter of discretion whether
the jury should or should not be charged
as 10 the character of those requests. A
slight thing may have turned the balance
against the accused under the crcum-
stances shown by the record and he ought
not to have longer remained burdened with
the characterization of his requests to
charge, made by the court, and when he
asked for the assertion by the court of the
| materiaiity and validity Of those requests
which had already been made, the court
ought to have granted the request
Justice Peckham also took occasion to
| comment upon the fact that when the jury
| came in with disagreement the judge
| asked how the jury stood, saying that the
practice was one which should not be en-
couraged.
| The decision in the Burton case will have
| the effect of compelling entirely new pro-
/ ceedings. II there is to be a new trial the
| case probably win have to be tried in the
| District of Columbia.