Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Mol

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1904No. Docket No. 193Published

Exceptions before judgment from superior court of Grand Rapids; Newnham, J. James Mol was convicted of accepting a bribe.

1DissentGrant, J.

In the year 1900 respondent was an alderman of the city of Grand Rapids. His prosecution arose out of the .notorious water boodle scheme, the design of which was to secure a contract with the city to supply it with water from Lake Michigan. The information charges that respondent—

“Did corruptly accept from, to wit, Lant K. Salsbury, a gift and gratuity, to wit, $300, under an agreement and with the understanding that the vote, .opinion, and judgment of him, the said James Mol, as such alderman, should be given in a particular manner and upon a particular side, to wit, in favor of said City of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. People v. BarkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Stewart v. PeopleMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
  4. People v. SalsburyMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  5. State v. SorterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1893

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API