The Washington critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1885-1888, 1885-08-19
sirrD Br 4 rrCuNjCiLtrT
Abraham Mitchell Acquitted OF the
Ginning OF asrTiMrA.

Ahialgm Mitchell, the colurcl man who
has been ENGAGED for several months as an
n!oimer ggairst persons charged with yio-
'liiru the liquor laws, I'm selling liquor with
cut licenses md on sunday, was before the
luli,c Court this morning for trial himself
The charge against him was perjury In the
Trial of John j. johnson, colorcd, OF 25)l
y street, charged ON the 9TH instant with
keeping an unlicensed bar. Mitchell has
l,cn locked up for several DAYS.
johnson was called to the stand and
swcrc HAT Gc heard Mitchell testify IN this
count that he bought three drinks In wit
res, house. He described the prcmi 1es
and identified witness as the man who sold
him the liquor Justice Of the Peace TAYLOR
identified Mitchell as thc person who swore
to au affidavit before him. The affidavit
was read and was to the effect that ne had
done Mr.. johnson great injustice, because
hcis now convinced that hc did not get any
liquor In the place Of The defendant, lie
was led into the error from tine fact that
there are several Johnsous on the street
lie was also led into the statement by John
Imncy.
The charge against johnson was con-
tiuutd and ON the Sth inst. the affidavit Of
Mitchell was fled, and ON the same day the
case had to be nullc prosecuted. johnson
denied, on cross-cXamnatiOn, that he
offered 10 pay Mitchell ~ If he would swear
that he was mistaken about buying liquor
from him-,luhusun. Levi, Alexander of
1850 IwCnty-iirst street stated that Mitchell
came to him and said he was sorry that Mr.
johnson was fined, lie also said that he
had lccn offered - to have the case dis
missed against w. Y. johnson. lie didn't
yet the -. Witness then said 10 Mitchell.
81 ann sorry Mr. j. j. johnson was fined.
because he is friend Of NINE Mitchell
said he was sorry, too, aud If witness had
brought Mr. johnson To him II would have
lcm fixed. at wasn't Mr. JOhnsOn's place
! was IN he continued, "but we have got
TO lookout for ourselves, you know
William T. Bailey, the lawyer who de
fcrdcd the case In which theullcgcd perjury
occurred, sworc that Mitchell positively
identified his client as the man who sold
him the liquor Mitchell also swOrc that he
had been IN the place before. John Tnncy
stated for the defense that the witness Al
cNundCr offered him and Mitchell SO If they
would let johnson out. Mitchell, the nc-
cuscd, stated that he was met by Alexander
ard Johnson in front Of the Court House,
and they gave him drinks until he got
drunk, and then got him to sign the allda-
VII and one Of them gave him 81 He
didn't even remember where he signed 1t.
Mr.. Frank Close appeared for the accused.
There was considerable interest taken in the
case, and suloon-kcepers from ali sections Of
tie city were present, particularly those
who have been up on complaint of Mitchell.
The disposition Of the case by the upper
ccmt Us Of considerable importance to the
District, as there are about fifty eases which
have lccu appealed which depend on
Mitchclr- testimony. 1t Is also important
to the defendants in these cases
The case was dismissed, on the ground
that II there was any perjury committed It
was IN the affidavit and not In the testimony
as charged