Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-02
STATUTE OF LIMITATION
Different Views Appear in Howgate Case
Arguments
Mr.. Birney and Mr.. WOrtlingtOn Dis
cuss the Matter and Judge
McComas Listens.

Shortly after 1 o'clock this afternoon
the hearing of the case of Captain Henry
w. Howgate was resumed before Judge
McConas in Criminal Court No. l. When
the hearing was adjourned last Monday
afternoon the prosecution had filed a de-
murrer to the defendants rejoinder that
the statute of limitations barred the three
indictments recently returned against him
1t that demurrer which substantially
contended that Captain Howgate, having
fled from justice, could not avail himself
of the protection of the statute, which
came up for discussion today.
In opening the argument District Attor-
ney Birney argued that the defendant re-
joinder averred facts which were not found
in the statute. The defendant, said Mr..
Birney, fed before the statute of limita-
items began to run. In other words, the
defendant had, by his own act, in fleeing,
put himself beyond the benefit of the stat
ute, and, therefore, could not now COM
plain nor take advantage of the statute.
Had Capt. Howgats remained in this juris-
diction, said Mr.. Birney, for more than
three years after the commission Of the
alleged offenseS, and then fed, he would
probably have had the benefit of the stat
ute. But, said Mr.. Birney, the defendant
fled before three years subsequent to the
commission of the offenses, and while he
remained a fugitive from justice the stat
ute ceased to run in his favor.
Mr.. WortIifn gton's Reply.
Replying to Mr.. Birney, Mr.. A. S. Worth
ington of COUNSEL TOR Capt. Howgate said
that the particular. question at issue had
never yet beenfully construed, and it would
not dc to rely upon the district attorney 9
construction of the statute. The statute
having once commenced to run, urged MIR.
Worthington, no subsequent act of the de-
fendart could ,affeet it.
For eighteen months or more subsequent
to his alleged commission of the oftenScS,
said Mr.. Worthington, Capt. Howgate re-
msfined in this jurisdiction end Was subject
10 all the services of the court Therefore,
said Mr.. Warrington, the government
could not now COME in and do that which
it had ample time and opportunity for do
ing years ago. wien thu defendant was
within the jurisdiction of the court 'a'st
In civil cases,. explained Mr.. .Worthing-
ton, the statute of limitations interposed
as an impartial arbiter between the parties
to the suit, but in criminal cases it. should
always be. and always was, construed lib
orally in respect to the defendant. The re-
Gently returned indictments, said MI. Worth
irgton, could well have been returned years
ago, before the alleged flight of the defend
ant. '.'
BY not returning new indictments against
the defendant, said Mr.. Worthngton, the
government had encouraged the defendant
while away to believe that it did not in
tend to bring more charges against him.
In the states of this country. said Mr..
Worthington, statutes were enacted which
provided that while the defendant in a
criminal case was a fugitive from justice
the statute of limitations remained sus-
pended. But Congress, remarked Mr..
Worthington, had failed to enact such a
law, and the District attorney therefore
asked the court to take the place of Con-
gress in the matter and enact such pro-
vision. thing. it was needless to say,
the court could not. do.
Mr.. Worthington had not concluded when
The Stars report closed.