The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1909-10-19

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 with
out fine, or guilty on the tirs: count,
which means imprisonment not eS-
ceeding five wears or fine not exceed
ing three thousand dollars and i'm
prisonment not exceeding one year
or not guilty. | hope l have made
that clear to You, gentlemen. II is
difficult and | have done the best |
could to make it plain.
''Coming now to the issues pre-
Senting in those TWO counts, the 2nd
and 3rd, in addition to the definition
generally and the general principles
I have already given you [ have but
a few considerations to advert to and
! have done. First, YOU will bear IN
mind in considering these counts as
to whether they have been proved be-
vond a 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 cpecl-
fic allegations are made out, because,
I have told you, while the definition
is general the State must stand or
fall by the proving OF failure to
prove these specific material allega-
tons under the general definition.
State Burden or Proof.
"As, for instance, the End count
alleges that the defendant co1ruptly,
and so forth, gave a certain sum OF
money to Wylie, a member Of the
Board, and so forth, as bribe and in
corrupt payment for his act, and so
forth. at Columbia, in Richland coun-
ty. Now, if you find that said sum
Of money was not so given, as alleged
in Columbia. that would amount to a
failure: that would be lack Of juI1s-
diction Of this Court. And so on as
to the other material allegations
therein. Upon this point defendant
claimed that the actual money must
be shown to have been paid IN Rich
land county. But it seems to me that
the weight Of authority holds, and l
charge you, that if the proof shows
that the payment of a check, draft or
other device used to cover the pay
ment of the actual cash, and which
was actually cashed elsewhere, that
would be sufficient to maintain the
allegation as to payment i'll Rlchland
county in this part Of the Indictment.
"The 3rd count, as I have stated
to you. more fully sets out the al
legged device by which it is charged
the alleged official was corrupted.
You have ali these allie -ations before
YOU, gentlemen. If either point IS
made out upon every 'materlal point
therein set out, then the charge OF
common law bribery charged in those
two counts is made out. Otherwise
not. If neither Of these two counts
is made out, but the first count IS
made out, the defendant is only gull
ty of the statutory crime charged
therein; and if neither Of the three
is made out under the rules | have
given YOU, he is not guilty.
A Present No Bribery.
One Of the essential elements OF dlt-
erence between the first and the 9TH
or TWO counts is that in the first an
offer is made and promise alone is
CHARGED, while in the others actual
payment. a mere present to an al
legged official given without a prlor
corrupt promise, understanding or
agreement will not suffice to constl-
tute common law bribery. Where
there is such a payment it is for the
Jury to say whether or not the pay
ment after the act and not before is
subterfuge to cover prior under
standing or agreement and whether
or not from all Of the evidence there
was beyond a reasonable doubt such
prior corrupt promise, understand
ing or agreement and that the pay
ment was corrupt and done with the
intent to influence and as an undue
reward and corrupt award tor the
discharge of public duty. In other
words, the payment must be a cor
rupt payment.
Il come now, gentlemen, to the
last and only other point to which l
desire to draw Your attention ana
do this in compliance with request
of counsel not that it is strictly a
| n,.t+o, of law because It has been