Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-08-13
GROUNDS FOR A NEW TRIAL
Statement of Counsel for Minnie de Forrest
Before Judge Mills.
Allegation That Verdict wass Con-
trary 10 Law and Evidence
Other Charges Made.

Attorney Fulton of Fulton & Edwards.
counsel for Minnie l.. de Forrest, who was
last week convicted by jury before Judge
NILS OF Keeping dlsorderly house. TODAY
asked Judge Mills to set aside the verdict
ana to grant his client a new trial upon the
following grounds: 5ot i
Because the verdict was contrary to the
evidence. also to the burden Of proof; be-
cause upon all the evidence and upon the
entire case, the jury should have returned
verdict of not guilty; because the verdict
was contrary to the lawg because of preiu-
dice against the defendant, partly On ac
count of the fact that she conducts q vapor
bath and massage establishment, and part
~ on account of the publication of false
statements.
Inc counsel also alleged errors on the
part Of the presiding Justice during said
trial In allowing Sergeant Moore to state
IN cetal what one Claudio Clark, the com
planning witness in the case had told him
IN inc absence Of the defendant and upon
which the information against The defarG
ant was made. Also in refusing tn allow
tne derendant to produce evidence as to
certain subsequent admissions of the said
Siauole clark, contradictory of The state
ments made to the police officers and no
cause of other errors upon the mart of tha
court 10 which exceptions were duly taken
ana because of errors on the part of the
Juuse IN refusing certain Of the prayers
presented by the defendant. and In his
charge to the jury, to which excent,ons
were also taken
WI. fulton reviewed the evidence pre-
senteu at the trial at length and when he
concluded Prosecutor Muliownev said he
d1d not desire to make any remarks in
reply. III
Compliments to Counsel.
Judge Mills said there was nothing that
ne wished to say except to compliment
the counsel for the defense for his able
hiahasement OF his clients case and to
overdue the motion for new trial.
MI. fulton at once moved for an arrest
OF Judgment and to set aside the verdict
and to dismiss the case. on the ground
that the ofense charged is a common
law onense. and that there are no common
law oHenSeS against the laws of the United
states, and because the court which tried
the case was and is without Jurisdiction
In the case"
Mr. Fulton addressed the court at con:
siuerdpie length IN support of his last mo-
ton, and Mr. Mullowney replied briefly
claiming that the Police Court of the Dis
trict OF Columbia was empowered specially
Wy congress 70 deal with and punish all
Judge Mills overruled this motion like
wise, and Mr.. Fulton gave notice that he
would take an appeal. He also requested
that the court would state in the record
| as he had said orally, that the decision
was passed on the law of Congress passed
IN 1871, which continued the law then in
force IN MARYLAND and Virginia and in the
District OF Columbia, and Judge Mills said
| he would do So
Mr. Fulton then claimed that there was
no regulation at that time either in Mary
land or virginia, on the subject of baWdy
houses, and Mr.. Mullowney replied that
there was law, but 1t had no penalty at
| tached.
Mr.. Fulton then stated that he had ex-
hausted his efforts SO far as the United
States branch of the Police Court is con-
cerneo, and asked Judge Millsoto deal as
| leniently as he could with hiss client and
| II possible suspend sentence because Of
the character of the testimony upon which
| she was convicted that+t was the first
| time she had ever been bnougfro into court
! TO answer charge; that, she bears a. good
name. is poor woman and not able to
| pay heavy fine, and that heF health is
| not good and she has sick child in Vir-
| gina VINO she desires to Visit at once.
| Judge Imposes Sentence.
Judge Mills assured Mr. Fulton that he
rad no desire to be harsh with the pris-
oner, but In view Of the, fact that it was
not likely, considering the notice counsel
had given of intention to appeal that she
would have to pay the penalty for a con-
siderable period. he could not consent to
suspend sentence, as asked. He did not,
however. feel that it was his duty to be
| especially severe. The case was, he said
the hrst OF the kind heard in this court.
ana presented some unusual features, and
ne would therefore impose a fine of 500,
| in jail for ninety days
MRS. De FORREST, after a conference be-
tween Judge Mills, Mr.. MuIfowny and Mr.
sutton, nied the necessary bond and was