People v. Liphardt
| Decision Date | 16 April 1895 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LIPHARDT. |
Error to recorder's court of Detroit; William W. Chapin, Judge.
William Liphardt, convicted of receiving a bribe, appeals. Reversed.
Thomas J. Navin and Edwin Henderson (George Gartner, of counsel), for appellant.
Allan H. Frazer, Pros. Atty., and Henry A. Mandell, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
The defendant was convicted of receiving a bribe upon an agreement to vote for the adoption of a certain school seat at a prospective meeting of the board of education of the city of Detroit, of which board he was a member. The outline of the case, as claimed by the people, is that the Manitowoc Seating Company, a corporation, through its agent, one Atcherson, was a competitor for the contract for seats to be purchased. Atcherson had a conversation with one Davis, a member of said board of education, in which Davis had said that, if Atcherson would give the defendant $100, of which $25 was to be paid in cash in advance, and the other $75 after the contract was signed, the defendant would vote for Atcherson's desk at the next meeting of the board. Atcherson thereupon informed the mayor that there was crookedness upon the part of some members of the board, and he expressed a desire to detect it, and caused certain members of the police department to confer with Atcherson about it. A room was secured by Atcherson adjoining his own in the hotel, and some officers and a stenographer were placed therein, to overhear an interview in Atcherson's room when it should occur. Holes were made in the walls between the two rooms to aid in hearing and seeing what should take place. An interview was had, in which the witnesses testify that the arrangement was stated by the defendant as understood by him, in conformity to the arrangement with Davis, above mentioned, and Atcherson then and there paid him and he received $25 in money upon his promise to vote for Atcherson's seat. The defendant denied that he had any such interview, and sought to prove an alibi, which was substantially all of the material testimony offered in his behalf, but in this court most of the questions arise upon the rather inconsistent theory that he was decoyed into the commission of the act through a conspiracy between Atcherson, the mayor, and the police. Some 70 assignments of error appear in the record and we cannot conveniently discuss each separately, but will refer to the more important only.
Atcherson was the main witness for the people, and testified to most if not all, of the principal facts relied upon by the prosecution. His credibility was a proper subject for investigation by cross-examination. The defense should have been permitted a full and searching cross-examination in relation to all that he did in connection with the affair and were entitled to go into his relations with all who appeared, or could be shown to be connected with the transaction. He testified that he had "figured on a scheme in his mind to detect them, for he knew that they would come to him with a proposition." He said that upon his arrival, three months before this transaction, a man, not a member of the school board, talked with him, and asked what he would give to secure the contract. He declined to state his name, as he said it had no connection with the matter. The court refused to compel an answer. He testified that he was satisfied from what was said to him that he would not be prosecuted, and that the mayor made him a promise of similar nature within 48 hours before the event. He said that he talked with him concerning what he was going to do, and told him "all he had discovered, the whole story from beginning to end." He was asked if he understood or was told that, if they resigned, they would not be arrested for this transaction, and his answer was excluded under objection and exception. The court was in error in these rulings, as the defendant's counsel were entitled to all the facts that led up to this transaction, including the interviews with the mayor and police officer in relation to the proposed detection of bribery, and the names of all that had to do with it; not that it necessarily tended to establish a conspiracy, but that it might show one, or, at all events, might bear upon the credibility of Atcherson's story, and perhaps furnish the means of refuting it. The testimony of Atcherson may fairly be said to show that he encouraged Davis to advise Liphardt that he would accept a proposition from Liphardt to sell his vote for $100; that he informed the mayor of this; and that the mayor was willing to aid in detecting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial