State v. Womack

• Decision Date: 07 March 1892
• Parties: STATE v. WOMACK ET AL. [2]
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

29 P. 939

4 Wash. 19

STATE v. WOMACK ET AL. ^[2]

Supreme Court of Washington

March 7, 1892

Appeal from superior court, Thurston county; F. CAMPBELL, Judge.

Indictment against J. W. Womack, R. L Edwards, M. C. Sullivan, and C. O Eames for attempting to bribe a member of the state board of education. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, the state appeals. Reversed.

Calkins, Shackleford & Calkins, for respondents.

DUNBAR J.

Under the provisions of chapter 12 of the Laws of 1889-90, approved March 27, 1890, and which, by reason of the emergency clause went into effect upon its approval, the governor appointed four persons, who, together with the superintendent of public instruction, were to be denominated the "Board of Education of the State." Among other things, it was made the duty of the board at their first regular meeting in June, 1890, to adopt a uniform series of text-books for the use of the common schools of the state, and to enter into a contract with the publishers to supply the same. In accordance with the provisions of the act, the board met, and proceeded to adopt certain schoolbooks for the state. Prior, however, to entering into a contract with the publishers of the books adopted, and at the same meeting, the alleged attempt to bribe one of the board, to wit, L. H. Leach, was made, and an indictment was found against the defendants herein for the crime of an attempt to bribe. The indictment was demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained, and the state has brought the case here on appeal.

The body of the indictment is as follows: "J. W. Womack, R L. Edwards, M. C. Sullivan, and C. O. Eames are accused by the grand jury of the state of Washington for the county of Thurston, by this indictment, of the crime of attempting to bribe a member of the state board of education of the state of Washington, committed as follows: That heretofore, to wit, on the 9th day of June, 1890, in said Thurston county, state of Washington, L. H. Leach was a duly appointed, qualified, and acting member of the state board of education for the state of Washington, and was then and there engaged with the said board of education in holding the first regular meeting in June, 1890, of said board of education in the capital of said state, to wit, Olympia, Thurston county, state of Washington; and said L. H. Leach, as a member of and with said board of education, then and there had under consideration and for the action of said board of education the adoption of a uniform series of text-books for the use of the common schools, including graded schools, throughout said state; and that J. W. Womack, R. L. Edwards, M. C. Sullivan, and C. O. Eames, then and there well knowing the premises, did then and there unlawfully, wickedly, and corruptly contrive and conspire together to tempt, seduce, bribe, and corrupt said L. H. Leach, so being then and there engaged in his said official duties with said board of education, in adopting a uniform series of text-books for the use of the common schools, including graded common schools, throughout said state, to prostitute, abuse, and unlawfully betray his said trust, and violate his duty as a member of said board of education, to act in his said official capacity with partiality and favor, by then and there offering to pay said L. H. Leach five thousands dollars; all of which said J. W. Womack, R. L. Edwards, M. C. Sullivan, and C. O. Eames then and there did and performed to unlawfully and corruptly induce, influence, and bribe said L. H. Leach, in his said capacity and character as member of said board of education, corruptly and unlawfully to exercise and perform the duty so vested in him as such member of said board with partiality and favor, by then and there moving and voting for a resolution reconsidering a vote theretofore had by said board, by which certain text-books had been adopted by said board, to wit, Wentworth's Arithmetics and Franklyn's Readers, and to move and vote for a resolution adopting by said board certain other text-books, to wit, Barnes' Readers and White's or Robinson's Arithmetics, which latter books said J. W. Womack, R. L. Edwards, M. C. Sullivan, and C. O. Eames were then and there interested in procuring said board of education to adopt as text-books for the use of the common schools, including graded common schools, throughout said state." It is allegedly by the defendants that the indictment is bad, because (1) it does not state that any crime was committed; (2) the officers of the board are not included or contemplated by our statute on bribery; and (3) that the board of education, having once passed a resolution adopting a series of schoolbooks for the use of the public schools of the state, could not legally reconsider the vote, or rescind their action; while the appellant contends that the indictment is sufficient to sustain a verdict for an attempt to bribe, and that, in any event, the indictment charges a conspiracy, and that in charging a conspiracy it is not necessary to charge any overt acts. But it is not necessary for us to discuss the last contention of appellant, for we think the indictment as a whole, submitted to a fair construction, shows it to be sufficient to maintain the crime named in the charge, viz., an attempt to bribe. The statute (Code 1881, §§ 879, 880) provides that "every person who shall bribe or attempt to bribe, or offer any present, bribe, or reward to any judge, justice of the peace, juror, commissioner, referee, auditor, arbitrator, or person summoned as a juror, or to any executive, judicial, or ministerial officer, or member of the legislature, for the purpose of influencing him in the exercise of any of the powers in him vested for the performance of any duty of him required, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the county jail any length of time not exceeding one year, and fined in any sum not exceeding two thousand dollars, or fined only." What does this indictment charge? Setting up the material portions, and eliminating that which is immaterial, we get at the substantive charge by the following words: "Did then and there conspire together to tempt, seduce, bribe, and corrupt said L. H. Leach, by then and there offering to pay said L. H. Leach five thousand dollars." It is claimed that the words "then and there offered to pay," etc., simply described the manner of the conspiring, instead of asserting that the money was offered to Leach. But an indictment, like every other written instrument, must be construed with reference to the whole indictment, and not to segregated or detached portions and statements; and, while the language employed might possibly be tortured into this meaning, considering them with reference to the language preceding and following, it is not the natural construction. Follow the above words by the following sentence: "All of which said J. W. Womack, R. L. Edwards, M. C. Sullivan, and C. O. Eames then and there did and performed to unlawfully and corruptly induce, influence, and bribe said L. H. Leach," etc. The obvious antecedent of "did and performed" was the offering to pay, and not the conspiring together. They could conspire together without doing any overt acts, and in an indictment for conspiracy all that would be necessary to charge would be the conspiracy, and when they do something it is an addition to the conspiracy, and the recital of that something cannot be held to be descriptive of the conspiracy. The use of the participle in charging the act...