Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-08-28
BE Was Sentenced Today to Pay q
Fine of 500.
THE ~EIGHfHOUR LAW CASE
Motion for a New Trial Argued and
OverruIed.
A N A p P E A L NOT E D

This afternoon Attorney Andrew Wilson.
CT Wilson & Barksdale, appeared in the
Police Court to argue the motion previous
ly made by him for new trial in the case
of Contractor Winfree, convicted Of viola
ton OF the eight-hour law. in working his
men over eight hours q day In the recon-
struction Of the Wallach school building.
Mr.. Wilson read the eight-hour act and
said the information against Winfree sets
out an alleged misdemeanor. and it is stated
mat there was no extraordinary emer-
gency under which the work was done He
held that 1t was necessary for the govern
ment to prove that there was no extra
ordinary emergency. The government had
not done this.
On the other hand, witnesses showed that
there was such an emergency as to ex-
cuse working more than eight hours a day.
and that moreover there was pressing ne
cessity for doing the work. The contractor
mad worked as many men as could be util-
tzeds at enc time. This was shown by the
testimony of both sides.
Was There an Enlargement
The principal point to be made at this
time is that 1t was necessary for the gov
eminent to show there was no pressing
emergency. and failing to show this the
defendant was entitled to a verdict of ac-
qulttal without producing any further tes-
timony. The government has not made a
complete Information in this case, mas
much as there was failure to include the
second section of the eight-hour law
VINE rein the words intentional violation"
occur. and which. Mr.. Wilson contended
are vital In the case.
MIR. Wilson produced numerous authori-
ties, which he read at length, to substan-
tate his contention.
I'VE should have an arrest of Judgment
In this case" said Mr.. Wilson. because
the information has not included the ques-
ton Of Intention
Mr.. Wilson said the question is one Of too
grave importance to be passed over hurried
ly 1t means a great deal to the laborer
and to the employer. There is no penalty
Unless the defendant Intentionally violated
the law.
Governments Side.
Assistant District Attorney Malowny OPP
posed Mr.. Wilson's demand for new trial,
and controverted the contention upon which
the demand was made. He held 1t was
necessary for the defendant to show an ex-
traordinary emergency for violating this
act. The burden of proof did not devolve
upon the government. 1t not neces-
sary for the information to refer to the
violation being intentional. The informa-
ton should only apprise the defendant of
| what he was charged, in order that he
might defend himself.
Verdict Justified.
Judge Mills ruled that the jury had not
committed an error, but that the facts be-
fore the jury justified their verdict. He
therefore overruled the demand for a new
trial.
Mr.. Wilson gave notice of his intention to
apply for appeal to the Court Of APP
peals for a writ of error
Sentence Imposed.
| Mr.. Malowny moved for sentence of the
| defendant, and Judge Mills fined Contractor
Winfree 800. The execution of the SEN
tence was suspended upon the filing of a
bond of $500 to prosecute the appeal or
| abide by the decision of the court.