Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1878-04-24
The National Hete, Outra~e.

E. Fl. Curtis, alias Richardson, alias Hough-
ton, charged with having, on the 9th of March.
1871, committed rape on the person of Miss
room at the National Hotel in this city. was as
called. Curtis, it will be remembered, was ar
rested in New Orleans in December last, and
a lew weeks ago was tried and convicted, but
misconduct OF the jury, in that portion of
them had carried to their room a newspaper
from which evidence was read, the verdict
was set aside and new trial awarded. In an
tlcipatiOn OF the trial pr0ceeding to-day, there
was large number of interested spectators
present in the court room this morning, and
there were also a number OF BaltimOreanS
lsOme of them witnesses) in and about the
building. The prisoner was brought into
court at the usual hour in company with Mich
ed with similar offence committed on the
person of a child OF eight years, named Fine
burg. Curtis took a seat near his COUNSEL
MeSsrs Cook and COrkhill.
CURTIS WANTS A POSTPONEMENT
The court having announced that he was
ready to proceed with the case,
The defence submitted an affidavit and a
motion for continuance Oh the ground of the
absence OF material witnesses-amOng them
Z. Hammersley, James Gorsuch, May Miller
and others, who would testify as to the bad
character of the prosecuting witnesses before
the alleged offence was committed.
Mi. Wells replied that this assault of the de-
assault which IS the Spbject of the Indictment.
Mr.: Cook warmly defended the affidavit. and
said that the information he had by letters
ana Otherwise, sustained the affidavit and if
witnesses he would, in week or ten days,
proceed and do the best he could without
them.
THE COURT REFUSES TO GRANT CONTINUANCE.
The court read the affidavit and remarked
that ON the former trial the court with some
hesitation allowed evidence as to individual
acts OF leWdneSS prior to the occurrence, and
refused it as to such acts since. He had
reconsidered his action and examined the law
and he would rule that such acts could not be
prOVedelther before or after the act in question.
He read from Phillips, Starkey, and Greenleaf
and said that he now thought he was in error
On the former trial. Under the authorities
The question was now as to continuing the
case so as to afford opportunity to call witness
ses as to general character. He did not think
ebaracter is tb aas w Seith aor t ne general
nelghbOrhOOd, and one of her acquaintance is
as good as another. In this affidavit there is
statement repeated in two places. There
are no other witnesses known to the affant bv
which he can prove said facts Well, there
are two witnesses who are expected to prove
her general character is bad, and there arc no
other witnesses by which they can prove the
general character so that he did not think
this affidavit sufficient, and declined to grant
the continuance.
MISSING WITNESSES.
The defence asked that the witnesses be
called, and several failed to answer, when the
defence said that they would file motion for
a. continuance on the ground of the absence
The Court directed that the jurors be sworn
on their r0ire dire.
Mr.. Cook.-In the name of justice demand
these witnesses.
The Court.-You can have attachments.
Mr.. Cook then said he would protest, but at
the suggestion OF the court said he would ex-
cept to the ruling.
AFTER JURY.
Mr.. &. d. Livingston was sworn, and the de-
fence proposed to profound questions as to
the qualifications OF the jury, but was over
ruled by the court. The defence then OBJ
jected to the form of the oath but was again
0xeIruled, and an exception taken Mr.. Lii
each answered that they had formed or eX-
pressed an opinion except Mr.. l.. A. Dent
. The marshal was directed to summon thirty
five talesmen.
The following of the talesmen were decided
competent by the court: Elisha p Taylor,
Lewis Il: Butler, Horace Hineline, John T.
BelI !; a. Stephenson Alfred Lowry, Jacob
acre, II. G. McCauley, n. A, Smith. and took
regular panel. The defence challenged from |
chr and. Stephenson. W. T. Solomons, B. G.
Berry, Alex. Douglass, John White Thomas |
MOreland and Henry Heffner,were called and |
Archer and George Wright had formed opia.
ions. OF this number John White was chal- |
lenged by defence, and Mr.. Moreand by the |
government JOnn Gfanam was called and |
excused, having been on the grand jury which |
acted on the case, and A. w. Jackson was ac- !
cepted.
THE JURY SELECTED
is composed of the fOllOwing:-E B. TAYLOR,
Horace Hineline. Alfred Lowry, L. White. |
more, ID: w: Goodwin, II. c. McCauley, n. A. |
Smith, w: I. SOlOmOns B. G. Berry, Alex
Douglas, Henry Heffner and &. w. jackson
(Three are cOlOred.)
District Attorney Wells, at a few minutes
past II O'Clock, commenced his opening argu-
ment, relating the circumstances of the case
already familiar to the public.
Mr.. COrkhill, for the defendant, followed
claiming that there was no rape whatever in |
seduction.