Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-09-23
COL. AINsw0RTH DEMURs.
His fien of Not Guilty withdrawn
Argument Next Friday.

His Pien of Not Guilty Withdrawn
Argument Next Friday.
The long expected initial move Of the de-
Tense in the case Of the United States agt
Atnsworth, Dant, Covert and Sasse was
made yesterday afternoon before Judge Nc
Comas In Criminal Court. No. /, when
counsel for the four defendants, Messrs
r. Ross Perry and H. E. Davis. withdrew
the formal plea of not guilty as to the first
indictment and filed a demurrer The court
then set the demurrer down for argument
at ii o'clock next Friday morning. The
district attorney next called the attention
CT the court to the second Indictment re-
turned against the four men last Wednes.
day. and upon his motion the accused were
then called upon to plead to that indict
ment Judge McComas permitted the foul
men to enter a formal plea of not guilty
to the second Indictment. with the privilege
OF Withdrawing that plea not later than II
O'Clock Friday morning next. and then Al
Ing such other plea or motion as they may
deem proper.
There were very few persons in the court
room when at $3.50 Judge McComas re-
quested Marshal Ransdell to open the court
N the absence OF the regular court crier
District Attorney Birney stated to the court
that second indictment had been returned
against the four men and asked their ar.
raignment upon that indictment.
Demurrer Filed.
Mr. H. E. Davis thought, however, that
the first business which should be trans.
acted was the withdrawal Of the formal
plea of not guilty as to the first indictment
This was done and then Mr.. Davis ex.
planned that counsel now proposed to take
other action than that first determined upon
by them, and had they not so determined
they would probably have asked further
extension Of time. Counsel for the accused
had now. however. decided to file a de.
murrer to the first Indictment. The de.
murrer claimed that the indictment was
bad in substance because. first. that the
indictment upon its face discloses a mis-.
toinder Of defendants.
Second, that the indictment upon its face
fails to charge a definite duty in the prem
ises upon the defendants and gives them
no legal notice Of the particular act Of neg
ligence wherewith they are sought to be
charged.
Third. that the said indictment upon It's
face charges upon the defendants an illegal
measure of care and diligence in the prem
ises.
Fourth, that the indictment upon its face
charges criminal responsibility upon several
defendants for the omission Of an alleged
point or common duty not exclusively the
duty OF any one of said defendants, and
yet not point or common duty In the sense
that each Of said defendants was charged
exclusively with the performance of con.
temporaneous or successive parts Of joint
or common process.
The Second Indictment.
District Attorney Birney at once entered
q 5oinder Of issue with the demurrer, and
stating that the second indictment differed
with the first one only as to Col Aims
worths first name and In the matter OF
one or two slight clerical errors asked that
the same demurrer be entered as to the
second Indictment Counsel for the de-
PENDANTS objected to such a course at the
present time. and at Judge McComas' sug.
gestion the second indictment was then
read and the accused entered a formal plea
Of not guilty. their counsel stating that
both indictments would be answered al
the hearing Of the mater Friday morning
next. The court thereupon adjourned until
that time.