Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-09-20
A Tee NICAL POINT
Covered by New Indictment in the Ford
Theater Case.
The Government Fully Expects to En-.
ter Upon the Trial Some Time
Next Month.

The case of the United States against
Messrs. Ainsworth, Dant, Covert and Sasse.
indicted last July for manslaughter in con-
nection with the Ford's Theater disaster
Of June 8. took new turn today. when
another indictment was returned by the
grand jury against the four men. The in
dictment returned today charges the ac-
cused with the same offense charged in
the indictment Of last July, and. indeed.
is in the exact language employed in the
first one with q single most important ex-
ception. And that exception conveys at
once, even to the layman, the one i'm
portant reason for the new Indictment In
the first Indictment Col. Ainsworth was re-
ferred to as one Frederick" c. Answorth,
while in the one returned against the four
men today he is referred to and designated
as one Fred" c. Ainsworth.
To Avoid a Technical Plea.
When the four accused parties were ar
raigned Mr.. r. Ross Perry, counsel for
Col. Ainsworth. intimated, so the prosecu-
tion understood. that he might desire to
enter a, plea Of misnomer as to his client,
and it is because of such an intimation,
made 1t is thought, in an unguarded mo-
ment. that District Attorney Birney de-
cided to anticipate such a plea and prevent
unnecessary delay by reindicting the four
men and causing Col. Ainsworth to be re-
ferred to as Fred c. instead of Fred
erick" c. Ainsworth. After the first indict-
ment had been returned ii became known
TO the prosecution that Col Ainsworth
while at times had been called and known
as Frederick c. Ainsworth, he had been
much more widely known as Fred C. Aims
worth. The government also discovered
that ne had been nominated to and con-
hrmed in his present official position as
FREQ Z. Ainsworth. although on a previous
occasion nominated and confirmed as Fred
erick Z. Ainsworth. Hence to make as
surance doubly sure and prevent any and
all unnecessary delay in reaching a trial of
the case. District Attorney Birney decided
upon the step taken by him today.
The Accused to Answer.
Or course. the Indictment returned today
VIII necessitate the bringing of the four
men into court in order that they may plead
to 1t. Judge McComas, who, 1t is expected.
VIII preside at the rearraignment Of the
accused parties. is out Of the city at present
win tne intention of returning next Friday,
at which time II is the purpose Of District
Attorney Birney to require the men to
answer the new Indictment. Both indict-
ments will remain standing against the four
men, quite Irrespective Of each other, and
the fact that the two are, with the single
exception above referred to, identically the
same, Will, the prosecution believes cause
no delay In the withdrawal Of the plea of
NOT suhty, ana the nling OF any motion
attacking the legality of the first Indictment.
When the accused were arraigned they were
given until the 18th Of this month in which
to nle such a motion. and this time was
several days ago extended until Friday
next: Should demurrer or motion TO
quash be filed In reference to the first in
oictment within the specified time the gov
eminent would, In all probability, request
that similar demurrer or motion to uuash
be filed in the case Of the second indictment.
that hearing on either might be expedited
confident that no unreasonable delay will
occur and will exert every endeavor to
reach trial Of the case at the very earliest
day practicable. which II hopes will not be
later than some day during the next month.