Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-07-18
NATTANS ASSAULT CASE
Testimony All In and the Lawyers
Argue.
Mr. Nattans Makes Sweeping DenInls
of the Charge-The Testimony
Produced Yesterday.

Yesterday afternoon In the Police Court
In the case of Arthur Nattans. the drug
gist. charged with having assaulted Miss
Gcorgie Smoot. his cashier By nuggins her
several witnesses were examined after The
Stars report closed. Miss Smoot concluded
her testimony and the defendant took the
stand In his own behalf. Counsel question
Ell him about the charge made against him,
and he made a sweeping denial of every
thing she said. He told the court that he
discharged her Thursday afternoon. the
day after the alleged assault. ami said he
did not pay her for the whole week. but
settled only up to the time of the discharge
His excuse for discharging her was that
the business Of the store did not justify ker
being retained.
On cross examination the defendant de-
MED that he had made any effort. either
directly or indirectly. to compromise the
case. and he also said he did not express
any Willingness to make an apology. writ
ten or verbal. for he had done nothing
which called for an apology.
Defendant asked If he ever had In
his employ a Miss Sallie Scherer. and he
said he did not remember the name. Misc
Scherer came forward. and even then he
did not remember her. He also denied that
he mad accused her of being cents short
In her accounts. and that he told her she
would have to submit to being searched by
MINI He did not remember that she was
discharged because business was dull.
Defendant said that DIR. Harrington was a
personal friend of his and he has an office
In the house of Miss Webb. the girls at
torney. IL the doctor said anything, to the
girls counsel defendant was not aware
of 1t. He also denied that he had attempted
to influence William Thomas, a colorei boy,
in his employ.
Warrant Clerk Washburn was sworn to
tell of statements made concerning the al
lese1 compromise, but his testimony was not
admitted.
Samuel Nattans. son of, defendant, gave
evidence In behalf of his father. as did DIR.
Mason. who is in the defendants employ.
Miss Schercr Textiaes.
The government then called Miss Scherer
and she stated that she was employed in
Mr.. Nattans' store for about two weeks.
Were you discharged" she was asked
Yes. SIR -- ..-......-. ....
What did he say about searching you?'
Il object" interposel counsel.
The court excluded the question.
When wrO you employed by Mr. Nat
tans?''
Il don't know the exact date, but 1t was
when he was arrested for selling liquor
William Thomas. the colored boy. was
next called. He had worked for Mr.. Nat
tans for some time. and he told what he
knew or the case. He had said he. would
not make good witness for Mr.. NAttans
and when a deputy marshal SUNNI sreA HIM
he was badly friXhtened.
What did Mr.. Nattans say to you, IL
s.lythlns. about Your teSs!!itfyins?' h was
the store on Fourth = OF f. 3Gly. ara va IN a
position to see the cast-er-s desk and would
say l didn't see any hing WRONG. II would
be to my benefit -
Were you in such >"
NO SIR"
Then you didn't see them"
NO. sir: not after l came in and went
behind the laboratory. but | heard Miss
Smoot say something about hitting him
with a bottle II he didn't go away"
Victor Rench. a Hrsrk "a the store. iisnti-
fled Miss S,ncot ash having been in the store
for short while as cashjsE.tn .su
This closed the evidence and MIR Jeffords.
for the prosecution. said he was willing to
submit the case without argument but as
counsel for NattaRs wOuhl no aNreeb to this
proposition. the Case went over until today
Arguing the Case.
When the case. was, called ,in ,the Police
Court this afternoon at = O'Clock MIR JEFF
fords announced. easas lfea,N otfd' can no wit
nesses unless there s,W; srs sp9s .foS tha. ode
Tense. Mr.. Thomas said that he did not
desire to call any a.orss and as. this closed
the matter Of testimony In the .e<sse MIR.
Thomas pr ,st nted~ 'stver& r Prayers for in
structtOns to the jury. .---,, -.
MT. Jeffords. for the government re-
viewed the evidence Ia tina -eAse. sIfis re-
marks were brief. but In them he touched
upon all the salient features In, Miss SIN S6t' 8
story. claiming that II was worthy of Gre
dence and that II made eUcs ahs efYa rye" OF
assault against her late employer The
evidence of VIM. ,ThemaS rcerroNofased Der
testimony in all its substantial details. said
Mr.. Jeffords as did aiso the Testimony of
Miss Sallte Scherer. On the other hand ali
OF MIR. Nattans substantial sta.e,nAnts bad
been contradicted -.
In concluding his address Mr. Jeffords
made an earnest appeal for the fullest pro-
lection for young women and girls who are
compelled to work for living.
Mr.. Thomas followed and said that while
no man had higher opinion Of 'virtuous
women or higher ideal for womanhood
than he had he yet did not think that there
was anything In this case to show such An
assault as was claimed by the government
The place where the assault was said to
have been committed. a drug store on a
public thoroughfare. where there could be
no such thing as privacy, the character
of the defendant and the record of his
long. busy life all proved that there could
never have been such assault as Miss
Smoot had claimed