Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-05-10

| the defense to have the United States
| Supreme Court by certiorari review the
| finding of the Court of Appeals
| After review of the testimony Justice
! Gould takes up seriatim the thirty-three
| assignments of error alleged to have beer
committed by Justice Wright, who presided
at the trial, and proceeds to show thai
| no substantial error exists in the record
He concludes therefrom that Crawford haG
| a fair and impartial trial in accordance
with the settled rules of criminal law and
| procedure.
Allegation Of Conspiracy.
Crawford was twice tried, being first ar
raigned April o, 1905. Immediately after
Machen, who had been returned from the
penitentiary where he was serving a term
Of two years for conspiracy with Lorenz
and the two Groffs, had entered a plea of
| guilty. Machen on this Indictment re-
| ceived sentence of two years additional,
which will expire next April. Lorenz did
not plead to the indictment, but was used
as government witness. The trial of
| Crawford resulted June %, 1905, in dis
| agreement of the jury.
The second trial was held In the fall of
| 1905 and resulted in a verdict of guilty on
the first count of the Indictment. Acting or
this verdict Justice Wright. December 80,
| 1905, imposed a two-year sentence in the
penitent1ary.
From this judgment the appeal decided
| today was prosecuted. The hearing before
December, 1906, but was interrupted by an
attack of Illness of District Attorney Baker.
The hearing was resumed and concluded
the latter part of December last.
Taking up the first three assignments of
error which go to the refusal of the trial
| judge to instruct the jury to acquit, Justice
Gould In his opinion refutes the two-fold
contention of the appellant that an agree
ment is not to be held conspiracy simply
because the agreement If carried out might
pc an injury to the government, and that
II such be held to be the proper construc-
ton of section $40, under which the indict-
ment was drawns it is void for uncertainty.
1T might be TAKEN" says Justice Gould.
as settled law that under this section the
word 'defrauf does not refer solely to
property and pecuniary interests"
Other Cases Cited.
The case of Tyner against the United
States (also a post Office easel and others
cited, are said to fully sustain the con-
struction OF this section which holds that
any agreement, 1.-THE object of which is to
deprive the government Of the services of
those who are intrusted with the dis
charge OF duties which. are essential to fits
proper administration is conspiracy to
defraud" Quoting from holy writ, mo
man can serve two masters" etc. the
opinion declares that when an officer Of a
with public trust in connection with con-
tracts made by third parties to furnish sup
plies to that department and with the duty
of giving the government the full measure
Of his unbiased judgment In regard thereto
and in regard to the performance thereof,
enters into an agreement with such con-
tracing third party by which he Is to re-
ceive part Of the proceeds OF that con-
tract, he puts himself in such position
that it is impossible for him to perform
his trust or fulfill his duty to the govern
ment and the government is defrauded of
his services. -
has an universally accepted definition in the
law which is definite and certain, and,
while the courts give more hexibilfty to the
definition Of fraud, the elements which con-.
stitute II are clearly set forth In a multi
tude of decided cases. Quoting the Czarra
case, that the certainty required in the
definition Of an offense may be accomplish
ed by the use of words or terms OF settled
meaning, or which indicates offenses well
known to and defined by the common law"
the conclusion Is drawn that all uncertainty
has been obviated in this section of the
statutes by the use OF the terms consplr-
acy'' and "defraud," <'%
In passing on the fourth assignment OF
error the court settles question OF jury
service, exemptions and d1squalifications,
which has been the subject of different
District Supreme Court. The question
is whether salaried officers. ministers Of
the gospel, physicians and others exempted
from jury service by section 217 of the
District code are disqualified to act as
Jurors Some trial COURTS have sustained
challenges for cause against persons VINO
come under the section stated, and other
Justices have declared that 1t Is merely an
exemption which is to be taken advantage
Of by the talesman If he so desires.
Qualifications Defined.
Reading section 2l5, which sets forth the
qualifications of juror as to age, resi-
dence ability to read, write and under
stand the English language and never to
have been convicted of an offense involving
moral turpitude In conjunction with the
exemption clause, Justice Gould holds that
the qualification section governs, and that
those who are qualified under that section
are not disqualified by section PIT, but II
they come within the terms OF the latter
section have simply the right to assert
their exemption from jury duty"
The court decides that the words at the
end of section 217, land their names shall
not be placed on the jury LIST" is merely
direction to the jury commissioners in or
der that the lists may not be filed with
the names Of those who, when produced in
court, can escape service by asserting
their exemptions.
The appellant challenged juror because
he conducted a drug store, which was also
postal substation. The opinion declares
the trial Judge was right in declining to
sustain the challenge.
Error assignments numbered five to thir-
teen based on exceptions taken to the ad-
mission of certain testimony are held not
to be well made. The fourteenth and If
teenth assignments of error are directed
to the refusal Of the court to allow the
defendant to offer evidence as to his con-
duct after he had reason to believe he was
suspected of the offense charged, such evil
dence tending to show a consciousness Of
innocence on the part of the defendant
The opinion declares that the claim that
such refusal was error is to be rejected.
because the rule is well established that
such testimony is not admissible.
Tha rnf, of he nj oil
private account book of the defendant in