Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-10-05
THE FELONIOUS INTENT.
Mr.. Taggart Devotes His Argument to
That il the Ainsworth Case.
Mr.. Perry Commences His Argument
for the observation-disclosures At.
tention to the Indictments.

Yesterday afternoon in the hearing before
Judge McComas on the demurrer in the
case Of Messrs. Ainsworth. Dant. Covert
and Sasse. Mr.. Hugh T. Taggart, after
The Stars report closed. made a brief ar
gument on behalf of the government. and
was then followed by Mr.. r. Ross Perry.
who began the closing argument on behalf
OF the defendants against the validity Of
the two indictments. He had not finished
when, at O'Clock, the court adjourned un-
til this morning.
nr. Iaggarrs Point on FelOniOus
Omission.
MT Taggart confined himself mainly to
discussion of the contention of the de-
seIuahls u the failure To allege that they
Ieionlously removed the earth from be-
meath the pier without having first secured
the safety of the building In describing
me character of the building, and the prep
arations rendered necessary for the intro
duction of the electric light plant, the work
ana the duty of the defendants were suf-
lently alleged. claimed Mr.. Taggart and
tne feionious omission Of the defendants
could not well fail to appear. II the word
feloniously had never appeared In the in
dictmenfT. asserted Mr.. Taggart, its SUI
ncfency would nevertheless have been es-
tabiished He then proceeded to a discus
SION OF the meaning, in law. of the term
felony, and claimed that. despite the at
tempt of certain court to define the term
1t had failed. and nothing was so uncertain
that term.
Mr.. Perry for the Defendants.
MI Taggart closed his argument a few
minutes before 3 o'clock, and Mr. Perry at
once followed Mr.. Perry spoke with un-
usual earnestness. and In opening said that
he was glad his clients cause was in a
court whose first duty 1t is to do Justice
witnout regard to consequences. and to ad-
minister right because 1t is law He re-
ferred to the importance Of the first step
In the case being secure, and urged that X
there was any doubt as to the correctness
OF the indictments the law required that the
Judge should resolve 1t In favor of the de-
PENDANTS He then continued:
what were the facts before the pleader
when ne prepared this Indictment? From
he was dealing with the fall of a portion
of building, the interior weight of which
depended for support finally upon sixteen
brick piers. Of which four. with the brick
underpinned IN the course Of certain i'm
provements. He was further dealing with
the digging away Of the support to one of
these piers, in consequence Of which 1t fell,
bringing down In Its fall that portion Of the
building dependent on 1t for support What
the further facts before him were IL we'll
known Let US, however content ourselves
with the hypothesis that they were these:
before the pier In question was disturbed
IN any manner, three other piers, one of
which was In all respects similar to this
fourth one, had, together with their con-
Meeting walls. been safely and securely
underpinned: this fourth pier was dug under
py a laborer named Burl, by order of a
bricklayer named Scott; 1t had been in part
underpinned when 1t gave way and fell; the
only persons who were present when 1t was
aug under, the one digging at the order
OF the otner, were these two; they were the
only two who, in the event of the rule of
principal and accessory applying to this
case or 1eiony, can possibly be indicted as
principals; the nearest person in point of
relation to Scott was Dant; to Burl. Pull
man; Dant contracted to underpin and ex.
cavate, and Scott was his underninner.
Pullman subcontracted with Dant TO ex
cavate, and Burl was his excayator: n the
particular excavating under the pier in
question must be regarded as a part OF the
underpinning, then both Scott and Buri
were, for the purpose of the Indictment.
under Dant; more remotely connected with
the work were Thorpe. the head of the bu-
reau of supplies of the War Department
who had contracted with Dant for it's per-
Torrance. and Ainsworth, officially in
charge of the clerks occupying the build
ing. at whose instance the contract was
1t were Covert who was the superinten-
dent of the building. and Sssse. who, at
Ainsworth's direction had prepared speci-
hcations for the execution of the work.
Now, with this hypothetical case before
him. what was the pleader's proper course
or action? Clearly, he could treat the case
In any one of three ways: o. As q case Of
mission and omission; 81 as a case Of omis-
sion.''
MT. Perry then proceeded to a discussion
or the nature of the offense charged but
gave way for an adjournment almost at
the outset Of that question.