The Elk Mountain pilot., 1924-01-10
(Continued from first pagel

by the court advised jury that defendants could
be presumed to know all the law relating to their official
duties but that knowledge thereof such law related
to the acts in question, must be proved Assuming the
of this proposition it covered in
given If the erred in this particular
that of defendants, against them
5-Whie this Indictment contains but single count
the expenditures upon whose alleged authorization rests
are clearly divsbe mot only as to theit character but
also to the evidence supporting them and the nstuc
tions applicable to hem) into classes 1Inoxcat
ing liquor, 2-music, etc.
Assuming the correctness of the instructions as ap
piled the second class defendants could only be
victed of mafeaance for causing the money of the coun
be expended fo these things if they acted vciousy
wiifully knowing their acts be wrongful and
formed with bad intent and without justif
able Not only is the record absolutely devoid of
evidence of such facts but all the evidence positively
the Each of defendants cognizant of
similar expenditures under circumstances believed by the
commissioners to be beneficial the county No ques
ton of the legality of the expenditures in this second
class raised by and each of the defendants be-
eed them be legal and proper The county attorney
knew of the plan to make them and of the allowance by
the board of the bills them and suggested
possible objection thereto,
The alleged expenditures for intoxicating liquor
to which the evidence positive and directly conflict
ing upon entirely different ground The purchase
of meals music, etc, is ordinarily legal but such
chase of intoxicating liquor is forbidden by the criminal
personally but officially well to know that law If
they knowingly authorized the expenditure of county
funds for such purchase it would be absurd to
that such corruptly done to make the
argument had they allowed claims for bribery perjury
If it be answered that such expenditures would incident
ally be for the gain of the bribed suborned
and the de fniton "corrupty conended for by the
defense be thus reply that the expenditure for
liquor incidentally for the gain of the dealer there
in and defendants would be guilty under their def
milton of the The authorities cited need not be
examined Suffice it that have been called to
which would authorize official charged
with corruption involving the violation of general
criminal etatute plead in defenss either his ignorance
of the laws existence his laudabe motive for its vo
lation- Further analysis is superhuous
1t follows from the foregoing that unless these two
classes of expenditures be separated that this
able say that defendants were convicted of
causing the county funds to be spent for the first and not
for the second the judgment not stand.
Examining the record before it relates to
this subject find that the whole question of what
penditures legal and what Illegal left to
the determination of the jury without any guidance from
the trial court Defendants requested instruction No 81
refused and exception saved to that ruling The
tenth paragraph of the motion for trial and the
tenth assignment of based thereon Said in
advised the jurors that if they believed the
claims which it admitted included Intoxicating
liquor the only knowingly allowed defendants
be acquitted. That instruction correct and
the proposition not otherwise covered its refusal
There evidence to support conviction of de-
PENDANTS for allowing claims against the county for
toxicating liquor. There evidence support
conviction for allowing any other claims All Were, how
submitted to the jury For that the motion
for a trial should have been granted,
The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause
remanded