Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-04-27
THE OHLENDORF TRIAL
PROBABLE THAT CASE WILL
REACH JURY SATURDAY.
Defense Opened Today Many Wit
nesses on the Stand-State's Attop-
ney Magruder Testified.

testimony offered the part of the state
here this morning in the case of DR.. Jos.
c. Ohlendorf, charged with manslaughter.
was directed to show the general reputa-
ton of the Brentmar Sanitarium, where 1t
is alleged a criminal operation was per-
formed upon Margaret Hale in November
1903, by the accused, and which caused her
death
testimony tending to show that the place
was generally known as an abortion!st in
sutute was offered by Charles l.. Shafrer,
A l.. Hughes, r. w. Conkln, N. J. Brum-
baugh, VIM. c. Bengel j T. Holt and Ed
gar H Vondurant. all citizens residing in
the helShbOThood of the Sanitarium.
state Attorney Magruder was put upon
the stand TO substantiate the testimony
given by Ohlendorf at the previous trail
and was critically cross-examined by Mr.
George T. Hoover of Washington who is
making a decidedly favorable impression
Al the conclusion of his examination Mr..
robert w. Wells told the jury what the
defense expected to prove. 1t is probable
that the case will be given to the jury Sat
urday.
Testimony Yesterday Afternoon.
IN the testimony yesterday of Dr. Sig
mund A. Cara, resident of Hyattsville.
given after The Stars report closed wit
ness stated that he was personally ac-
Quainted with the accused. The question
as to who the proprietor of the United
States Medical Institute was on Novem-
Der ~ l9B was objected to by counsel for
the defense the ground of irreleyancy
The court overruled the objection and
counsel for the defense noted an exception
Witness stated that during the month Of
November, 1903. the United States Medical
Company had an office in Washington for
general practice. To the best of his
knowledge DIR. Ohlendorf was the com
pany in question. 1t was not a char
tered company, but simply name under
which DR.. Ohendorf practiced No one
else was connected with the institute so
far as witness knew. Witness sold out his
interest and good will to Dr. Ohlendorf
When did you learn or did you ever
learn of the death of a person named Mar
garet Hale?" was asked
The question was objected to and the
court overruled the objection to which an
exception was noted. Attorney Hoover con-
tending that what DR.. Cara might have
heard over the telephone, etc, was hearsay
evidence.
The witness declared that two or three
days before the 2jth of November, 1908 he
had conversation by phone with Dr.
Ohlendorf between his house and the Dis
trict line station, and that DR.. Ohlendorf
said he had some trouble in the house.
Did he say anything mOre?' asked At
tOrney Rogers.
Attorney Hoover objected to the witness
answering the question, on the ground
that the witness had already answered,
and that the attorney for the state had
no right to cross-examine his own witness.
The objection was overruled and the ques-
ton was repeated to the witness. The
reply that he did not think the de-
PENDANT at the bar said anything else.
Asked if he said anything after that, wit
ness said he stated he was going direct to
18th street to get some instruments.
On cross-eXamination witness stated that
no one else was associated with DR.. OIL
endorf because he had sold his interest to
DR. Ohendorf and held a mortgage on the
property. This sale made May l, 1903.
Witness stated that he was not at the
Brentmar Sanitarium during the months
of November, October, September or Au-
gust. In answer to a question by Attorney
Rogers witness said he did not have any
ownership, interest control in the
United States Medical Institute during
that time.
DR.. Humes on the Stand.
Dr. NJ. D. Humes of Upper Marlboro was
next called. Witness stated that he was
present yesterday when DR.. Glazebrook
gave his testimony, and. based upon what
the doctor said he believed the cause of
the death of deceased was due to hemor-
rhage and shock, or combination of both.
Witness stated that the wound might have
been inflicted twenty-four hours prior to
death. Could not have been inflicted five
days before death. He thought the space
Intervening between the time of the in
nction of the wound and the time of the
womans death about forty-eight hours, and
possibly less.
Witness was certain the wound could not
have been inflicted ten days before death.
In the opinion of witness, the conditions
disclosed by the autopsy could not have
been brought about by the embalming
process. The nature OF the clot of blood
Indicated that a child had been delivered
only short time before the autopsy. Wit
ness stated that If the hemorrhage had oc-
Cured ten days prior to death the con-
dition OF the blood would not have been
the same.
The surgical instrument that has played
such conspicuous part in the { IL
shown witness, and he stated that it was
an instrument used in obstetrics, and was
never used in heart or lung trouble. On
cross-examination witness stated that he
excluded all other theories of the cause of
death except hemorrhage or shock. or both,
In this regard agreeing with DR.. Fry,
previous witness.
DR.. L. a. Griffith of Upper Marlboro was
next called. Witness thought that from the
conditions disclosed at the autopsy local
peritontis would certainly have developed
within forty-eight hours He corroborated
the previous witness in all important par
HcularS.
Detective Sergeant Charles A. Evans of
Washington testified that he had an inter-
view with DIR. Ohlendorf November -. He
found him at the L. S. Medical Institute
between ! and o'clock. On that occasion
witness asked DR.. Ohlendorf how long de-
ceased had been in his institution, and he
replied from about = O'Clock November TO-
1908. Miss Hale had called at DR.. Ohlen-
DORIS office and asked for treatment. Wit
ness SAID OnlenQOrI stated at that time
that an examination disclosed the fact that
the woman suffering from heart and
lung trouble. Witness stated that he asked
the doctor to state the cause of death, and
he replied, endocartis, exhaustion. Wit
ness stated that the defendant had stated
to him that he had entire charge of de-
ceased, no other physician being in attend
ance. Objection was made to the question
ing of witness as to what was said at the
former trial, and the jury was excused
while this point was being argued by coun-
sci. The result of the discussion was that
after the jury returned witness was again
questioned. and stated that his next inter
view with DIR. Ohlendorf was at Brentwood,
the evening of November %, about 7:3o
o'clock, when Mr.. Levin, then states at
torney for Prince George county, Justice
of the Peace Arthur Carr and Constable
Charles w. Barr were present. DR.. Ohlen-
dorf was arrested. He proclaimed his In
nocence, and stated that he was about to
be punished for something for which he
was not responsible.
DR.. Ohlendorf stated that he had made
an examination of the heart and lungs but
had never examined the lower part of the
body. He claimed that the medicine he
was giving contained opiates to allay pain.
Witness was asked the question il DIR.