The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-10-25

th f. e"s 4eau. iii p Iaewever o was a deem
watched the case from its beginnings
when tbs. sesthIng caildron OF Henrict
we're se essiaine anS senersal ssiani
developed Twice the overlooking au
dience In the courtroom burst III,
Fulton ,yAsn he made come especiall,
strong statcment in his argument
Judge Harrison sharp reprimandet
s 70 at and ta
occasion, his face flushed with anger
he ordered the courtroom to be cleared
Mr.. Smith Jumped to his feet. and
havs he snst ne Inc
llerty askd. as angrily, IL Mr.. Smith in
cluded the attorneys for the defense in
his statement. Mr.. Smith apoioEized
for his issty remarEs and af.erwards;
that neither did he include Mr.. Hech-
Ter or Mr. Gentry in his remarks. The
prosecuting 8. attorney told those who
had committed the improperly to
apologize. G. a. Paul who had evt-
IDENTIFY imbibed somewhat too freely
accepted the invitation and came for
ward. He was called before the court:
$50 lie explained. however, that he
had no Interest In the case; that he
vas merely spectator: that he meant
r no disrespect to the court. and Judge
Harrison reduced the fine to SIS. which
was paid. with the costs.
!. The Interruption occurred just a Mr..
Fulton was concluding his harangue.
and lie was much put out By 1t.
;. Argument by both s'des was brill
liant and pointed. Both Mr.. Richard
son and Mr.. Fulton exeelled them
on the jury. Mr.. Smith. however, in
and TO do away with all idea of perss.
bis usual vigor. He was m!ld-nanner-
ed and courteous. both to the de.
fendant and counsel for the defense,
were, perhaps. excusable excor,s ton.
OF both the accused.
Mr.. Fulton In his argument. openly |
charged that the prosecution was de.
Hechler. and he was severe in his ar.
ratgnment of the machine which was
alleged to have brought the persecu-
tioE about.
Court did no. convene until e:57
when the Judge and counsel for both
sides entared together
The Court then read the Instructions
to the iury in part as follows:
Ixtruetion..
1. I. IS a crime under the laws o:
thts State for candidate in the pri-
aary election OF q political parsy Tor
candidate so- The office OF county i
treasurer 20 s4pead- pay, promise,
!ean- or SecoHae pecu-,iariiy liable in.
any way 20. any money or other valu-
able hing TO Influence voters in his
oehah IN said election, or permit the
same TO BE used with his knowledge
Ind his consent by his friends Or ad-
aerents IN such an election; but the
defendant cannot be found guilty upon
,roof OF any act or acts except such
As ara specified in the indictmea, IN
me manner and form as therein set
forth.
!. voter was one who voted in said
election, and ncne otner. A friend or ,
adherent OF candidate is one who
favored or sought TO promote the
nomination of such candidate in said
voter is within the meaning of the {
law. no matter when made, but 1t must {
D. = made MADE to influence the voter in tho
Sasnenlsr election specified in the in
paYment should have Influenced the
voter; IT is enough. If made for the
psrpose. No candidate can be found
guilty upon any such payment by
friend or adherent unless prior there
70 or contemporaneous Herewith ne
Knew the purpose of shch friend or
a seI,ns and he permitted It and con-
mission and consent need not be PROV
en- by direct evidence. Ii NAV he
e. es, L, by al the facts and cir.
S Sa'h as,ah Of the case. hut it must
:. reasonable doubt in order to con-
Sict. Payment by candidate, friend or
s 40 under this indictment must
ne maze ny nm and out of his own
ment. II made By way OF loan or ad.
Sancement to the voter.
=. II defendant was candidate in a ,
1907; II w. NJ. Mont gomery voted in
poll tax Of said Montgomeryy. a'a as 'g in c
G naaa = stp pa; i such payment was
m behalf of defendant in casting his
vote in the said election. then defend. /,
aht Is guilty under count / OF the in y
Iit,ans ~ any one of these con- !
The evidence beyond reasnnahis
uoubl; then defendant is not guiitv' ie
IN o. tb Inc court IT instrnets the jury that i
law pre- h a ssim1aal t'riss the
and this presumption goes WITH ,hs 6
detsndant Throughout the entire ureh tr .mf
Each ana svs at ever stage thereof
the ofense charged must be nroved .
f Deyomd a reasonable doubt. If the
81 I'm n,si1 ms not thus establish
reasonable ,.s,is! doubt. he should be NC. D
ii, 4 man ma Is presumed to intend that !
his acts. " y
5. The court instructs tho jury ,hatlt
ln s may acquit on one more counts q
OF the indictment, or they may cons =
Nict on one or more. and that IL fhav y
khall lind the accused guilty on mora p
,.h one count they may dix a sepa. t
rate punishment on each count; or. in a
their discretion, they may Ak one nm. !
, ,.,, on the whole Indictment. pro. =
vided such punishment does not eS. n n
ceed fine of $1,000. or confinement Il
~ 1ail for more than twelve months o
! a fne be imposed, 1t cannot be less VI
ihan {loe; or, IL confinement in iaij i
month. p'ie s.
s. The intent or purpose with which G
ar act Is committed being but me t
mental state of the accused. direct In
proof OF 1t is not required nor, indeed | c.
"a nit be ordinarily so shown, but il =
must be proved in some way: but 81
may be established by ali the facts
and circumstances attending the doinp
OF the act complained OF as disciosed W
by the evidence '.
II such facts and circumstances {,
leave no reasonable doubt OF the In !,
cient - sum i,
Mr., Smith opened the argument. lie ],
stated that this duty was not one OF y
his own seeking 1t was no pleasant III
1r,nv !. 4