Evening star., 1896-12-17
TESTING oNY ALL in
The Defense Today in the Wilkins 0leo-
margarine Case.
Arguments Being Made by Counsel
?, Government Presents Some Tes.
tiMony In Rebuttal.

The defense in the case of Walter p. and
Joseph wilkins charged with violating the
oleomargarine law by ceiling to the Dis
trict reform school October IL, 1885, an
unmarked sixty-pound tub of the stuff, had
their inning today before Judge Cole in
criminal Court No. I. the government hav-
1ES closed Its case yesterday afternoon.
Just before the trial was adjourned yes
terday, District Attorney Birney called
Percy +. Gallant and Philip l. Plummer
coiored, who stated that they had been en-
pioyed by the defendants, and their testi-
mony tended TO corroborate that of Philip
"A Kari. another employe of the defend
ants. who. as stated in The Star swore yes
terday that he. together with other en-
ployes, had frequently been required to re-
move all distinguishing marks and revenue
stamps from original packages of o!eo-
margarine. Lawrence Hayes and A j.
Kenny testified to receiving unmarked
packages of the stuff from the defendants
under the impression that they contained
butter. Clarendon Smith. local butter
dealer. closed the testimony for the gov
ernment, and he testified that the defend
ants had endeavored to induce him to
handle hutterine. proposing to bill it as
butter. and promising to protect him in the
proposed sale of it.
The Defense.
When the trial was resumed this morn
irg Mr.. Henry E. Davis. Of counsel for the
defendants, asked the court to instruct the
jury to return a verdict in their favor.
In support of his motion Mr.. Davis referred
to the Incorporation of his clients
company, and contended that the indict-
ment charged them as individuals and not
ss a body corporate. Mr.. Davis argued ahe
matter at some length, but Mr.. Birney did
not deem q reply necessary. and Judge
Cole promptly denied the motion. holding
that their incorporation could not relieve
the defendants of liability, and that the
government had made out a case sufficient
to place them on the defensive Tine ie-
fense noted exception, and then Mr..
Davis opened the case of the defendants to
the jury.
alleged sale to the reform school was not
made by the defendants or either of them
individually. but by the Wilkins Company.
body corporate. The defendants would
also show said Mr.. Davis. that the tub in
question was never i'm their possession, and
that it was, therefore. never sold or de-
livered by them to the reform school. Then,
as their first witness. the defense called
Attorney F. II. Stephens, for the purpose
of showing the Incorporation of the de-
PENDANTS. Mr.. Birney objected, on the
ground that the testimony would be i'm
material, and Judge Cole sustained the OBJ
lection, the defense noting another excep-
tion.
Mr.. Davis next called as witnesses
Arthur A Chaplin. Harry o. Beck and
Wisewell Wheeler. who Identified the
marks y A. A. on the tub in question as
being those of manufacturer with whom
the defendant did not deal. John Angus
terfer, Charles Pfuger and Andrew Loef-
her testified that they are pork dealers,
ana said that they had frequently pur-
chased empty butter tubs from the de-
PENDANTS.
Then the defense called several more
witnesses, some of them employees of the
defendants, who testified that the marks
80 A. A" were rot the marks of those
makers with whom the defendants dealt.
Robert H. Armstrong, employed by the
defendants. testified to calling at the re-
form school for the tub in question and
to seeing and marking it. The tub, he
said. Is butter tub. having no oleomar-
garine marks on it, and he declared that
it was not sixty-pound tub, but had con-
tanned scventy-two pounds gross nine
pounds being deducted for weight of tub,
etc. He was confident. he said, that the
tab had not been delivered sold by the
defendants.
Upon the conclusion of Mr. Armstrong
testimory. thu defense, much to the sur
| prise of the spectators. announced the close
of their case, not having called the de-
fenGants to the witness stand.
In RebuttaI.
In rebuttal. Mr.. Birney called Geo c.
Langley, a local butter dealer who stated
| that it is the custom to deduct eleven
pounds Tor weight OF tub and wear But,
he said. the gross weight of tubs varied.
The next witness called by Mr.. Birney
was Mr.. e. O. Whitford who testified that
| he has dealt here in butter, butterine, and
| like products for the past three years. He
| had frequently, he said. sold the defendant
empty butter tubs, selling them twenty or
more at a time. He had, he explained,
dealt in the - AA." brand
The testimony of Mr.. Whitford was Wig
orously objected to by counsel for the de-
PENDANTS, who claimed that it was not In
rebuttal Judge Cole, however. thought
that it was, and allowed its Introduction
the defense excepting.
Mr. Birney again announced the close of
his case, when the defense recalled Mr..
Armstrong, who stated that he had never
known the defendants to handle or receive
the % A. A. brand
With his testimony the case was declared
closed on both sides, and counsel on either
side proceeded to submit their prayers and
arguments. A verdict may be reached this
afternoon.