The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-24

SIEGEL FREE,
COURT ORDER
Stay Of Judgment IN
Bride Case.
JUDGE WAIVERS OPINION
Sheriff Higdon Gets Praise From
Bench.
Man VINE Pnid Money 20 secure Pro-
sectios Tor Poker Game ReIeas-
/. "a But nenied New Trial.

i6tTmin
Judge samuel Weaver of the criminal
court Of JEFFERSON county today grant
ed an arrest OF Judgment in the mo-
ton for new trial for Abe Siegel.
convicted ten days ago on the charge
Of brfbing a deputy sheriff to protect
Q poker game. Seigel was immediate
~ released.
Judge Weaver handed down quite a
lengthy decision in the case, the argu-
ments for the new trial or arrest OF
judgment being presented Saturday.
The Judge cited number of decisions
on similar lines made heretofore in
expressing his opionion.
Solicitors for the county asserted in
open court that all cases against va
rious persons charged with bride CIV
ing could be wiped of the board, In
accordance with the decision just
handed down. and said that the matter
now was in perplexing condition.
Judge Weaver's View.
Among other things Judge Weaver
This cause coming on to be heard
was submitted by the defendant using
the following authorities: ~
Curry VS. state. 12i Ala. 366.
walker VS.. state. 81 Ala, 76.
Sparkle VS.. state. 50 Ala. SO
Rivers VS., state 81 Ala. ~.
Fifth Cyc.. sec. 1042-2.
Second Bishops Criminal Law.
soc. 81.
1T Is my opinion that count one Of
the indtctmen is q correct and legal
chage Of bribery at common Law
which IL mlsdemeanor and punish
able by fine.
TT Is my opinion. further, that
count four Of the indictment charges
Satisfactory offense. which IL a felony
under our law and punishable by i'm
prisonment in the penitentiary for not
less than two nor more than ten
years.
"It win thus be observed that we
have in the Indictment counts good
1t common law and under the statute,
and one q felony and the other mis-
deEneanor.
srhe verdict in this case is as fol-
lows: We. the jury, find the defen-
dant guilty as charged In the indict-
udent.'
TT will be seen, as observed by
Judge Head. of the Supreme Court
Of Alabama. that the court would
be without directions as TO what de-
gree Of punishment to infiiet upon the
no says that in such case an arrest
Of Judgment ought to be granted.
This ~ e6a@ugh upon the motion In
arrest saR Judgment.
syrhe defendant also moved the court
20 set aside the verdict OF the Jury
ana allow the defendant new trial
for the Relieving reasons:
An to Deputy Dean.
Because the court erred In refus-
ing to allow the defendant to show
that the witness. L. r. Dean, was q
common informer and a common bribe
taker.
From reading the following au-
- - - -
field vs.. State; Mass. State reports.
10i: Penn. Reports 81: Alabama Re
ports 40; L r A. IS. and Northwest
ern Reporter rs. The latter case was
q case from Nebraska, and ON quarto
pedes holding as coAtended by the de-
PENDANT. that this fact should have been
allowed to be shown by the defendant
which ahould have been submitted to
the jury upon the question OF the degree
Of weight and credibility to be given
the testimony of l. r. Dean. The cases
above cited, one OF them, shows that
the witness had been detailed specially
to work up and prosecute gambling
cases. This fact the defendant sought
to show as tending to affect the credit
OF the witness. he being paid for this
particular classification Of arrests
Proof IN this case did show that the
witness, l. r. Dean. had been detailed
to do this kind of work; that is to
say, the testimony of the state tending
90 show that L. r.. Dean was approach
ed by the defendant. and that the wit
moss stated to him that for considera-
tion OF money, to-wit; five dollars. he
might run the business of a gaming
table, ana that he had on three diff
ferent occasions taken brides from the
defendant OF five dollars each. The
question was asked the witness IL he
was not witness in all the other
bribery cases that were then on the
docket of the criminal court for trial.
This the court refused to do, and IS
hereby alleged as error
C0neeFning New Trial.
vt V not necessary in my opinion 70 CON
slider Seriously the motion for a new trial
It is not my practice to set aside thu SOL
aran verdict Of juriea. but rather to correct
any mistakes which ] make or may have
made In the admissibiIity OF testimony or
for any other cause. assigning error ON my
part. unless the same Is glarinE mistake
However, much the Law looks with disfayor
and even with discredit upon the testimony
obtained as testified in these proceedings,
vet II was q question left by the court for
statinG that II the defendant corruptly gave
five dollars to the witness Dean. and the
witness Dean corfuptIy receipts IS from the
defendant siegel. they would both be guilty
under the Law. for in the very nature Of the
case there must be q giver and taker in all
hTtbery cases. but the court is unable to
understand how 1t was necessary for the
wItneas to open a running account Of brib-
cry with this defendant or any other de-
PENDANT in the prosecution OF his work ia
the auppressine Of gaming. All credit should
be given the sheriff for any lawful effort in
putting down this terrible crime fixed upon
our community or society.
aNlT-. 49, ali