The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1909-09-29

third counts, common Laws brib -
the punishment not being srAO .;
comes under the statute whicts I
the punishment to the discE II of
the Judge. not to excee< years,
with or without fine, &RMEou see
the punishment followingNM convic-
ton under the first count only is very
much less. To make it plain, then,
gentlemen, with this explanation your
verdict should be either guilty, which
means guilty on the first and either
the second or third counts. which
leaves the punishment to me, not to
exceed ten years. with or without
fine, or guilty on the first count,
which means imprisonment not ex-
ceeding five years or fine not exceed
ing three thousand dollars and i'm
prisonment not exceeding one year,
Or not guilty. I hope 1 have made
that clear to you. gentlemen. 1t I.
,oihicult and I have done the best
could to make it plain.
The Issues.
Coming now to the issues present.
ed in those two counts, the second
and third, in addition to the defini-
tions generally and the general prin-
ciples I have already given you,
have but few considerations to ad-
vert to and have done. First, you
Will bear in mind in considering these
counts as to whether they have been
proved beyond reasonable doubt or
not, you take the general definition
of bribery have given you and then
take the specific allegations Of these
counts in the Indictment and see If
these specific allegations are made
out, because. as I have told you, while
the definition Is general the State
must stand or fall by the proving or
failure to prove these specific ma
terial allegations under the general
definition. AS. for instance, the Sec
ond count alleges that the defendant
corruptly. and so forth, gave a GER
tain sum Of money to Wylie. a mem
Der Of the board, and SO forth, as a
bribe and in corrupt payment for his
act, and so forth, at Columbia, in
Richland County Now, if you ind
that said sum of money was not so
given. as alleged, in Columbia, that
would amount to a failure; that
would be lack of jurisdiction OF this
coust! ARD so o'on-ss to ths other jsiia-
terial allegations therein Upon this
point defendant claimed that the ac-
tual money must be shown to have
been paid in Richland County. But
1T seems to me that the weight of
authority holds, and 1 charge you,
that if the proof shows that the pay
ment of a check, draft or other de-
vice used to cover the payment of
the actual cash, and which was ac-
tually cashed elsewhere, that would he
sufficient to maintain the allegation
as to payment in Richland County in
this part of the indictment.
"The third count, as I have stated
to you, more fully sets out the alleged
device by which it is charged the al
legged official was corrupted. You
have all these allegations before you,
gentlemen. If either point is made
out upon every material point therein
set out, then the charge of common
law bribery charged in those two
counts is made out, but the first
count is made out, the defendant is
only guilty of the statutory crime
charged therein; and if neither of the
three is made out under the rules I
have given you, he is not guilty.
"One of the essential elements of
difference between the first and the
other two counts is that in the first an
offer and promise alone is charged,
while In the others actual payment. A
mere present 70 All alleged official
given without prior corrupt prom
ise, understanding or agreement will
not suffice to constitute common law
bribery. Where there is uch a pay
ment 1t Is for the jury to say whether
or not the payment after the act and
not before is a subterfuge to cover a
prior understanding or agreement.
and whether Or NOT PrOpo ou oe ,S
evidence there was beyond q reason
able doubt such prior corrupt prom
Use. understanding or agreement, and
that the payment was corrupt and
done with the intent to influence and
as an undue reward and corrupt
award for the discharge of a puh,ic
duty. In other words the payment
must De a corrupt payment.