Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1880-04-24
Lena Ieins Outrage.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN THE CASE OF T,
SMOTHERs.

NOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN THK CASE OF TON
SMoTHRRS.
The general public having by some means got
the impression that Thomas Smothers. the
colored man who was on Tuesday last convicted
OF the crime OF rape on the person OF Miss Lena
Leins, on the night or the 27th OF February last
would be brought into the Criminal Court for
sentence this morning, there was quite a crowd
present when the Court opened. The time for
ming the motion Tor new trial. OF which notice
was given by Messrs. B. Davenport ana Howard
Claggett, counsel for the convicted man, not
having expired. the prisoner was net brought
up TO-DAY and the crowd retired disappointed
Dullng the morning the motion for a new trial
was filed. The reasons given for asking IL are
that the Court erred in allowing the United
States 10 challenge two jurors; I'm admitting the
testimony OF Detective McElfresh as 10 the
identification or SmOthers 10y Miss Lelns at the
Jail; in allowing Augustus Almond 10 testify
alter the defendants case had been closed: In
allowing the government to ask the question of
Curtain as 10 having heard that SmOthers had
three wives, in allowing L. ChOppell and j. Y.
Oliver 10 testify as TO SmotherS having been
arrested: in permitting the recall OF J. X. Green
produced by defendant 10 prove that SmOthers
was at the shoe shop at 6 O'Clock, TO answer IL
he had not stated TO Officer Dunnigan and Ser
geant BroSnan that he (Sraenl was at the shop
at ; O'Clock, and that Tom did not come there at
that hour-a fact not proved on direct eXamina-
ton; In allowing Sergeant BroSnan aud Officer
Dunnigan to contradict Green as to matters
drawn out In crosS-eXamination; In not allowing
OF seeing man across Maryland avenue under
the circumstances related by May 0ffenstein !:
In charging the jury that the man who was
crouching by the side OF the victim was the
man who committed the outrage; I'm not in-
Structing the jury that the fact that Smothers
did not take the witness stand should not create
any presumption against him after an inquest
promising 10 cover this point In bis general
charge; in not inStructing the Jury that an
alfbi need not be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt, nor any tact on which his defence rested;
10 fnstructfng the jury that as Spriggs could not
remember seeing Smob rs on any other occa-
sion than that nan; they should take
this fact in consideration In aScertaining the
jury that because Minor Pals had said that Tom
laid down on his lounge early in the night and
had not lighted his lamp that the otner wit
neSSeS who testified that he was there at $40
O'Clock must have been mistaken. and that at
least 20 minutes time was unaccountad for,
during which defendant could have gone TO the
place OF outre re and have commit ed the crime;
that the court erred in inStructing the Jury that
because Green tod BroSnan and Dunnigan that
he (Ci.) did not see Tom at Woods shoe shop at g
O'Clock showed that Woods was mistaken;
in inStructing the jury that from the fact
OF defendant being ordered ID stand up in their
presence, they could Judge from hts appearance
whether htS resemblance 10 other men was so
great as 10 leave IL doubtful as TO Miss Leins'
ability TO identity him, thus compelling him TO
produce testimony against himself.
The motion viii be called up on Monday morn
ing, and probably be overruled pro TogDld and on
the exceptions taken the case after the imposi-
tion OF the Sentence-the maximum being thirty
years imprisonmenD Will go TO the General
Term.