Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-11-02
MOTION OVERRULEO
Justice Bradley Decides Point in Dan
Williams Case.
QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP OF FUNDS
Defendants Counsel Decline to In
troduce Testimony.
INSTRUCTIONS ASKED FOR

Counsel in the case of Dan Williams. the
eX-policeman who has been on trial in
Crimina, Court No. for more than a
week for alleged embezzlement of fines col
lected by him in the Police Court for the
District, consumed all Of yesterday in argu-
ing the motion of the defense for verdict
of not guilty. This morning Judge Bradley
occupied less than sixty seconds in dis
posing of the motion, saying:
81 have decided to overrule the motion.
The question of the ownership of the
money las not been free from difficulty,
but 1 deny the notion
Counsel for the defense noted an excep-
ticn. and then made the not unexpected an
nouncement that the defendant would offer
TO evidence.
The Instructions Desired.
Williams attorneys next offered drafts
of the instructions desired by them to be
given the jury They were many and COW
cred every phase of the case from the de-
ferse standpoint. Among other things they
asked the court to instruct the jury that If
they found from the evidence that the
money embezzled was in the possession Of
the law-that is, in the possession of the
Police Court-then the defendant should be
acquitted. So, too, II 1t was the duty of
the major and superintendent of police to
collect the fines and Williams was merely
his agent. Then. again, they asked the
court to tell the jury that If the aggre-
gate amount accounted for by Williams
covered the fines collected by him, but did
not cover the collaterals, then they should
acquit him, as the indictment charges the
embeZZlement of fines.
District Attorney Davis objected to about
every one of the instructions asked for by
Messrs. Tracy and Donaldson, counsel for
Williams, while the defense were no less
displeased with the three or four presented
by the government, the latter amounting
to request that the court instruct the
jury to convict If they believed the evil
dence.
District Attorneys Contention.
During the arguments on the instructions
Mr.. Davis. in referring to the question of
the ownership of the money alleged to have
been embezzled, said:
The point Is not whether the fines col
lected by Williams were the property of
the United States against the District
of Columbia. 1t is conceded that the fines,
being in cases in which the District was
prosecutor, should ultimately go to the Dis
trict, but the question Is at what point of
time they could be said to be the property
of the District: in other words, whether
they could be said to be the property of the
District while still in Williams hands. The
court suggested yesterday that perhaps
while the fines remained In Williams hands
and until they were turned over to the Dis
trict they were in the custody of law, and.
therefore. not the subject of embezZlement.
My answe. to this" continued Mr.Davis,
lis that If such were the case, Williams
could pocket them without any criminal
liability whatever, and further. that he
could not even give bond to turn them over
as he could only give bond to turn over
what belonged to the District; so that IL
he could give bond 1t could only be on the
supposition that the fines were the prop
M he lfGf ri uyhi in hor do
which is the very point, therefore, to which
the argument must RETURN"
Judge BrndIey's Instructions.
Judge Bradley denied many of the in
structions asked for by the defense, hold
ing that the money taken was that of the
District. Then the case was briefly argued
to the jury, first by Assistant District At
tCrney Baker, then by Messrs. Donaldson
and Jeffords on behalf Of the defendant,
and finally by District Attorney Davis, the
latter being particularly severe in his ar
rafgnment of Williams
The defendants crime Mr.. Davis remark
ed. was nothing more or less than stealing.
Yet" exclaimed the district attorney II
will say this much for Dan Williams, he did
not, as his counsel did today, cast doubt
upon the honesty of his fellow officers Syl-
vester. Kemp. Croft and Elliott. For he
confessed his guilt and acknowledged that
he alone was the guilty one"
Mr.. Jenords Retorts.
Upon the conclusion of Mr.. Davis re-
marks Mr.. Jeffords arose and stated that
neither he nor his associate had accused
or even intimated that Mr.. Sylvester Mr..
Kemp. or, indeed, any other. had in the
slightest way been guilty Of any wrong
doing.
Judge Bradley said he did not under
stand counsel for the defense to question
in the slightest degree the honesty or in
tegrity of any one.
Judge Bradley then briefly charged the
jury. telling them that the money was that
of the District and that the defendant was
an officer of the District, the jury retiring