Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-04-25
THE ARGUMENTS MADE
APPEAR TODAY BE-
FORE JUSTICE WRIGHT.
Court Holds That in Administering
Justice No Cause Should Be
Given for Complaint.

Jointly indicted for the embezzlement,
under section s41 of the code of the Dis
trict of Columbia, of nearly $4,000 of the
funds of the Washington Beneficial En-
dowment Association, placed in their hands
as receivers of the association Mr.. Lips
comb contended that his defense and that
of Mr. Fields are so antagonistic and con-
fiicting that 1t would be prejudical to him
if they should be tried together. The prose-
cution opposed the granting of the motion.
Major Holmes Conrad is associated with
Attorneys r. Walton Moore of Virginia and
Attorney F. Edward Mitchell of this city
In the defense of Mr.. Lipscomb. Former
Senator John NJ. Thurston of Nebraska was
for business reasons, obliged to proceed to
Oregon, and therefore cannot participate
in the trial of the cause.
Justice Wright will hear, tomorrow morn
ing, arguments in connection with the de-
murrer to the indictment filed by Mr.. Fields
In the event the demurrer Is overruled the
cases of Mr.. Fields and Mr.. LipScomb will,
in turn, be called for trial Immediately fol-
lowing the conclusion of the hearing of the
charge against John L. O'Brien, which Is
scheduled to begin tomorrow.
United States Attorney Beach was not
prepared this afternoon to say whether Mr..
Lipsomb will be placed on trial ahead Of
Mr.. Fields, or whether the latter shall be
the first to face jury.
Motion to Postpone Denied.
Attorney D. W. Baker of counsel for Mr..
Fields, when the Lipscomb-Fields case was
reached today. explained that he was en-
gagged In the trial of a case in Circuit
Court No. 2. and urged that the argument
on the demurrer filed in behalf OF Mr..
Fields be postponed until next Friday.
This motion the court declined to grant
and at the hour of adjournment this after
noon the understanding was that the de-
should COnSldera-
ton at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Attorney Baker announced that at the
proper time he will submit a motion for
leave to take the dispositions of two persons
in New York and another person in London
England. their testimony being considered
important to Mr.. Fields.
Attorney Conrad suggested that Mr.. Lips
combs motion for severance be held In
allegiance until after the court passes upon
Mr.. Fields demurrer to the indictment, for
the reason that should the demurrer be
sustained there would be no necessity for
arguing the motion for a severance. The
suggestion was not adopted, and Attorney
Mitchell thereupon began the opening argu-
ment in support of the motion for sever
ance
While the granting of such a motion
rested in the discretion of the court, AttOr-
ney Mitchell contended that 1t almost
a right 10 which Mr.. Lipscomb was en-
titled, that he be tried alone. The defenses
were antagonistic, the speaker said. for the
accusing Mr.. Lipscomb of being guilty.
Attorney Moore pointed out that impress
sions would be made on the jury unfavora Bile
to Mr.. Lipscomb, should the two men be
tried Jointly. and Mr.. Fields should testi-
fy, ostensibly in his own behalf, but in
reality, with the view of dragging down
Mr.. Lipscomb. 1t was mere fiction. accord
ing to Attorney Moore, to say that the
defenses were not antagonistic Counsel
declared that one of the defendants was
"a self-confessed felon," while the other
processes to be innocent; that one apparent
ly relies on techncalities, while the other
of taking the dispositions of a person
facts; and that one seeks delay and speaks
of taking the repositions of a person
across the ocean, while the other is DESTROYS
of a speedy trial.
The Government Contention.
In opposition to the granting of the mo-
ton Assistant United States Attorney
Easily Smith argued that convenience
and justice demanded that the defendants
should be tried jointly. The speaker said
he did not see why the defenses should be
considered antagonistic. He added that the
prosecution does not depend at all upon
the alleged confession made by Fields in
note to Lipscomb and would not offer
In evidence as confessions the letters
written by Fields to Mr.. James E. Pad
gett, putting blame on Mr.. Lpscomb AS
early as the year 1900 the auditor of the
court stated that the fund in the hands
OF the receivers was miSmanaged in that
1t had not been properly invested and IT
was declared Mr.. Lipscomb had notice at
that time that should have put him on
guard When the disappearance of the
fund finally became known, Assistant
United States Attorney Easby-Smith in
formed the court, Mr.. Lipscomb. instead
OF charging Mr.. Fields with the embez-
element of the whole amount was only
e aitro,-
embezzlement of 81 504. which sum Fields
received on a check signed by Fields &
Lipscomb," and drawn for the usa of
Fields.
United States Attorney Beach. the next
speaker. remarked that so far as he could
see there was no earthly reason why the
two defendants should not be tried Jointly
Mr.. Beach accused the defense of wanting
to take advantage of techncaities in that
Maj. Conrad had suggested that the argu-
ment of the motion for a severance be de-
layed until after the court should pass upon
Mr.. Fields demurrer to the indictment.
Line of Prosecution.
Mr.. Beach went on to say that should the
defense attempt to show by the note from
Fields to Lipscomb that Fields exculpa ted
Lipscomb from wrongdoing the prosecution
would attempt to show by the letters from
Fields to Mr.. Padgett that Fields incul-
pated Lipscomb The governments counsel
asserted that 81 504 of the fund by the act
of Lipscomb, had been placed absolutely at
thu disposal of Fields and that there should
not be any discrimination, adding that Mr.
Lipscomb would not have any advantage
in a separate trial that he would not have
in joint trial.
Attorney Conrad. who closed the discus
sion. expressed the opinion that the argu-
ment of the United States attorney would
be unanswerable in a civil action against
the receivers, as the act of one would
therein be regarded as the act of both.
Difference Cited.
But this is criminal action" Attorney
Conrad, continuing, said. 1.-The court Is
obliged to regard the vast difference that
distinguishes these two men. They are
joint defendants but they have no joint
defense"
The court called attention to the fact that
the law should be so construed that the
public will feel that justice Is being fairly
and properly administered in its courts;
and also, that defendants should feel that
they have been fairly treated therein. The
court was convinced that MIR. Lipscomb
honestly believed that joint trial would
be prejudicial to his rights. and that the
position OF the joint defendants was such
that the defenses would be antagonistic.