State v. Faulkner

• Decision Date: 09 June 1903
• Citation: 75 S.W. 116,175 Mo. 546
• Parties: THE STATE v. FAULKNER, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

75 S.W. 116

175 Mo. 546

THE STATE v. FAULKNER, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

June 9, 1903

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Walter B. Douglas Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Thomas B. Harvey for appellant; Chas. P. Johnson and Thos. J. Rowe of counsel.

Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, Sam B. Jeffries, Assistant Attorney-General, and Jos. W. Folk for the State.

GANTT P. J. Fox and Burgess, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GANTT, P. J.

At the December term, 1901, of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis for the disposition of criminal causes, to-wit, Division number 8 of said court, the grand jury, summoned from the body of said city, in open court preferred the following indictment against Harry A. Faulkner:

"State of Missouri, City of St. Louis, ss.

"Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, December Term, 1901.

"The grand jurors of the State of Missouri, within and for the body of the city of St. Louis, now here in court, duly impaneled, sworn and charged, upon their oath present, that at the said city of St. Louis, on the 31st day of January in the year one thousand nine hundred and two, and during the December term, one thousand nine hundred and one, of said court, the grand jury of the State of Missouri, within and for the body of the city of St. Louis were then and there duly and legally convened, having been then and there duly and legally impaneled, sworn upon their oath and charged according to law in Division No. 8 of said court, and that a certain complaint was then and there made and presented before said grand jury against one Charles Kratz, and one John K. Murrell, and other persons, for the offense of bribery committed by the said John K. Murrell, Charles Kratz and others in said city of St. Louis, and that in the investigation and hearing of said complaint before said grand jury, so impaneled and sworn as aforesaid, it developed that in October and November, in the year one thousand and nine hundred, there was pending in the Municipal Assembly of the city of St. Louis, consisting of a City Council and a House of Delegates, an ordinance known as Council Bill No. 44, and commonly known as the Suburban Railway Bill, same being a measure giving and granting to the St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, a railroad corporation, certain rights, privileges and franchises, that one, John K. Murrell, was at said time a member of said House of Delegates, and that one, Charles Kratz, was at said time a member of said City Council, and that one, Philip Stock, was employed by said St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, a corporation as aforesaid, to secure the passage of said ordinance by said Municipal Assembly, and that on or about November 30, 1900, the said John K. Murrell, member of the House of Delegates as aforesaid, went to said Philip Stock and stated that unless a large sum of money, to-wit, seventy-five thousand dollars, should be put up for the use and benefit of said House of Delegates, the said ordinance would not be passed by the said House of Delegates, but that if said Philip Stock, agent of the said St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, would place with said John K. Murrell, the said sum of seventy-five thousand dollars, said ordiance would pass said House of Delegates, and after some conferences the said Philip Stock and the said John K. Murrell went to the Lincoln Trust Company, a corporation, with offices at number 700 Chestnut street, in what is known as the Lincoln Trust Building, and there said Philip Stock, in the presence of said John K. Murrell, deposited in lock box numbered one hundred and thirty-two, of the safe deposit vaults of the said Lincoln Trust Company, the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars, there being two keys to said box, said Philip Stock holding one key and the said John K. Murrell holding the other key, and that the said sum of money was deposited with the express understanding between said Philip Stock and said John K. Murrell that upon said ordinance being passed by the House of Delegates, the City Council, and signed by the Mayor, the said sum of money would be turned over to the said John K. Murrell for his own use and benefit, and for the use and benefit of the other members of the House of Delegates he claimed to represent. That in said investigation one, Harry A. Faulkner, was duly summoned as a witness, and did then and there personally appear as a witness before said grand jury in regard to said complaint; that the said Harry A. Faulkner was then and there duly sworn by the foreman of the said grand jury and took upon himself his corporal oath, the said foreman, to-wit, one William H. Lee, being then and there duly and legally authorized and empowered, and having competent authority to administer the said oath to the said Harry A. Faulkner, and that then and there it became important and was material to the issue and to the investigation of said complaint by the said grand jury, whether the said Harry A. Faulkner had any knowledge or information of the existence of said sum of seventy-five thousand dollars, and of the purpose for which it was to be applied:

"And then and there he, the said Harry A. Faulkner, on his corporal oath and before the said grand jury, did feloniously, falsely, corruptly, knowingly, willfully, and maliciously depose and swear in substance and to the effect following: that he did not know nor had he ever heard of the existence of the said seventy-five thousand dollars deposited in the Lincoln Trust Company as aforesaid for the purpose of influencing, or bribing or corrupting any member of the House of Delegates for his vote or influence in the passage of said ordinance; whereas, in truth, and in fact, he, the said Harry A. Faulkner, then and there well knew of the existence of the said sum of seventy-five thousand dollars, and that said sum of seventy-five thousand dollars was deposited in a box in this safe deposit vault of said Lincoln Trust Company as a bribe to be paid to the said John K. Murrell and other members of the House of Delegates whom he claimed to repent, to influence their votes for and in favor of the passage and enactment of the said ordinance in the said House of Delegates; and so the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid do say, that the said Harry A. Faulkner, at the city of St. Louis aforesaid, on the thirty-first day of January aforesaid, in the year aforesaid, in the manner and form aforesaid, feloniously, falsely, knowingly, willfully and corruptly committed willful and corrupt perjury contrary to the form of the statute and against the peace and dignity of the State."

The defendant was arrested and was duly arraigned and pleaded not guilty and was tried at the June term, 1902, and convicted and his punishment assessed at two years in the state penitentiary. After unsuccessful motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, he was duly sentenced, and from that judgment and sentence he has appealed to this court.

The facts necessary to a correct understanding of the rulings of the circuit court and the exceptions of defendant's counsel are in substance the following:

The State offered evidence proving and tending to prove that the Municipal Assembly of the city of St. Louis is composed of the House of Delegates and the City Council, constituting what is known as the Municipal Assembly. The defendant, Harry A. Faulkner, in 1900 and 1901, was a member of the House of Delegates branch of the Municipal Assembly. In September October and November, 1900, there was in the said House of Delegates an organization or association, commonly called a combine, for the purpose of controlling legislation, and also, it was asserted by the State, for obtaining money for their votes. This combine consisted of nineteen members, and included John K. Murrell and the defendant Harry A. Faulkner. In October, 1900, there was introduced in the Municipal Assembly an ordinance known as Council Bill No. 44, giving and granting to the St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company certain privileges and franchises. The ordinance was introduced October 9th; it remained in the Council until February 8, 1901, when it passed that body and was referred to the House of Delegates. Numerous meetings of the Council took place from the date of the introduction of the bill before its final passage. While the bill was so pending before the Municipal Assembly, one John K. Murrell, a member of the House of Delegates and a member of the before-mentioned combine of nineteen members, of which the defendant was likewise a member, went to Philip Stock, who was "the legislative agent" of the St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, and asked if he (Stock) represented the St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company; Stock told him that he did; Murrell thereupon said in effect, "I represent the House of Delegates and we want seventy-five thousand dollars from your company, and if you do not give it the bill will not pass, and if you do give it the bill will pass." Murrell further proposed that half of the amount be paid when the bill should pass the House of Delegates, and the other half when it became a law; Stock told him that he would not submit the proposition to his people, because he knew they would not accept it, but that if Murrell would make the proposition that the seventy-five thousand dollars should be paid after the bill had been passed and signed by the mayor, then he would submit it. This took place on October 17, 1900. Murrell next came to see Stock on October 22d of that year, and stated that he could not recede from his first proposition, because he was not sure that if a veto took place the Council would pass the bill over the veto; Stock said that that was all he could do in the matter, and Murrell thereupon...