Commonwealth v. White

• Decision Date: 02 March 1911
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. WHITE et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

208 Mass. 202

94 N.E. 391

COMMONWEALTH v. WHITE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

March 2, 1911

COUNSEL

Henry C. Attwill, Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Herbert Parker, H. H. Fuller, and M. L. Sullivan, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

This is an indictment against the defendant White, who was the mayor of the city of Lawrence, and five other persons, charging them with having conspired together, and with other persons whose names are to the jurors unknown, to bribe three members of the board of aldermen of that city to vote in favor of the removal of one Hamilton from the office of chief engineer of the first department, which office he held by the appointment of this defendant as mayor. The exceptions were taken by White alone, and he is the only defendant before us. The indictment is in two counts, charging the substantive offense in different forms, which it is not important to consider. The defendant desired to remove Hamilton from the office, and wished to have a majority of the board of aldermen, which consisted of six members, vote to approve the removal of him.

The exceptions argued by the defendant relate to three subjects First, the refusal to rule that there was no evidence to warrant a verdict of guilty; second, the alleged errors in ruling upon the admission of evidence; third, the impaneling of the jury, and the alleged error in allowing certain peremptory challenges by the commonwealth.

There was much evidence tending to show attempts to bribe aldermen by some of the defendants. This came through the testimony of numerous witnesses as to what was said and done, constituting such attempts. The defendant's counsel has argued the case as if none of this testimony was to be considered by the jury, as against the defendant, for any purpose. When the district attorney offered different conversations between different defendants and individual members of the board of aldermen, the judge, after objection by the defendant White, admitted the conversations and statements only as against the particular defendant who was the party to them, telling the jury that he would instruct them later as to how far and for what purposes the statements could be considered. Plainly the conversations and statements, as such, were competent only as against the persons who made them. This was the substance and effect of the ruling. But if a material transaction, like the acceptance of a bribe or an attempt to influence one by the gift of a bribe, was accomplished wholly or in part by words, proof of the transaction by stating the words would be competent against any person in whose trial the transaction might be important as a circumstance proper to be proved. The substance of the offense charged against the defendant can be proved only as such offenses are commonly proved, by circumstantial evidence. There was testimony of a statement by the defendant in December, 1909, that, if he was re-elected and could get four aldermen to stay, he would remove Hamilton as chief of the fire department, that he was an ingrate; that he repeated this statement several times; that he asked the different aldermen how they stood in regard to the removal of Hamilton. It was well established that the purpose and desire of the defendant in reference to the removal of Hamilton were like those of the persons who were shown to have offered bribes. When the mayor asked the members of the board of aldermen how they stood on Hamilton's removal, 'he started walking away and said, 'There will be no police appointments.” Afterward, when the grand jury were investigating the matter, he sent for a witness and asked him to state to the grand jury 'that it was the wish of the marshal that these police officers be appointed; that he wanted the answers to correspond.' There was evidence that about the time when these attempts at bribery were going on, the mayor had private interviews with some of the persons who were engaged in the attempts. It appeared that when money had been paid to one of the aldermen as a bribe and the removal of Hamilton had not been accomplished, the mayor took active measures, with the aid of the city marshal and other officers, to obtain the return of it, that he told the reporters 'that a friend of his had given $1,000 to a member of the city council for a certain matter, and that the friend came to him and told him about it'; that he took down a law book and read in regard to the punishment of the offense of taking money as a bribe to one from whom he was trying to get help in getting back the money, and who had taken a part in the bribery. The evidence also tended to show that he pretended to read from the book that which was not in it.

There was evidence that, afterwards, an order was passed by the city council, requesting the mayor to call the...