Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-06-21


comb Will not rely on technicalities, as did
Mr.. Fields. Mr.. Lipscomb asserts that he
Is not guilty. and that he will establish
his innocence by facts. The defendant is
represented by Attorney Holmes Conrad,
Attorney r. Walton Moore Of Virginia and
Attorney F. Edward Mitchell of this city.
Attorney Conrad, who made the closing
argument for the government in the Craw-
ford case yesterday, was not in court tc-
day. but 1t Is understood he will appear
later during the trial in behalf of Mr.. Lips
comb. Messrs. Moore and Mitchell were
In attendance when the case was called.
Throughout the session today Mr.. Lisle
LipscOmb, a brother Of the defendant sat
with him. In the selection of the jury the
defendant assisted his counsel very mate
rally. The court room was well filled
with an audience that seemed to be deeply
interested in the hearing.
Jury Impaneled.
Nearly two hours were consumed In Inn
ranelfng a jury, those finally selected to
pass upon the question OF the guilt or inno-
cence Of the accused being Messrs Frank
A. Wright. Fred H. Brownell. ]. D. Burns.
William H. Fagin. Appleton P. Clark, Jr.
L. Pierce Boteler, John r. Clark, James
r. Nalley, John Gibson Walter H. Dixon,
Alvey A. Quade and Philip Young
After an informal discussion it was de-
cided that the defense should demur to
the fourth. fifth, seventh and eighth
L.
promptly sustained the demurrer, and the
defendant went to trial on the first, sec
ond. third and sixth counts. During the
Fields trial demurrer to the indictment
was hled and argued at length. The court
then sustained the demurrer to the fourth
fifth. seventh and eighth counts, and
overruled 1t Is regards the first second
third and sixth counts. The ruling today
was in accordance with the order in the
Fields case, as the indictment is the same
Opening Address.
The opening address to the jury in be-
half of the prosecution was made by
United States Attorney Beach, who, with
Assistant United States Attorney James
S, Easby-Smith, represents the govern
ment in the conduct of the case. Mr.. Beach
referred to Mr.. Lipscomb as member of
the bar of long standing lawyer of
brilliancy and talent Section S41 of the
code. under which the indictment was re-
ported. was read to the jury. Then Mr..
Beach stated that Mr. Fields and Mr.
Lipscomb were appointed receivers of the
court in a certain equity case; that money
was placed in their possession by virtue
of their positions as such receivers, and
that they gradually converted the money
to their own use.
Going into details, the United States at
torney pointed out that in the year 1893 or
1894 the Washington Beneficial Endow-
ment Association decided it's property to
the Commercial Alliance Life Insurance
Company of New York. Later the bene-
fetal associa ton sought to have the deed
Attorney Lipscomb. Attorney Fields ap-
peared for the Commercial Alliance. The
court appointed them receivers In the case,
instructed them to sell the property involv-
ed and to hold the proceeds subject to the
further order of the court.
According to United States Attorney
Beach there was "nibbling and nibbIing,
and taking and taking by both of the re-
ceivers." In 1897 they made an investment
IN the form. of Understanding certificates
of deposit of the Washington Loan and
Trust Company. Thereafter, 1t is stated.
as the receivers needed the money, for pur-
poses proper or improper they would sur
render the certificates they held for certifi-
Gates of smaller amount, taking the DIFF
ference in cash.
Government Contention.
The jury was told by Mr.. Beach that Mr..
Lipscomb appropriated the money to His
own use or actually allowed Fields to steal
it. 1t would be sufficient to warrant con-
viction he added. If Mr.. Lipscomb con-
sciously knew that Fields was stealing the
money, and he, the other receiver, permit
ted the theft.
1--WE are told that there will be no tech
nical defense interposed here Mr.. Beach
remarked. ut is a square Question of fact.
Did Lipscomb take the money, or con-
did he not?'
The stage was reached in the equity cause.
Mr.. Beach, continuing, said, when the re-
ceiyers were directed to distribute the fund
Soon thereafter Fields disappeared. Mr..
Lipscomb visited the Office of the United
States attorney and made statement.
Then he swore out warrant for the arrest
of Fields. Later he appeared before the
grand jury and gave part of the testimony
that resulted In an Indictment being report
ed against Fields. Fields was apprehended
and an indictment was reported against
Fields and Lipscomb jointly. Lipscomb
moved for a separate trial and the motion
was granted.
Ibid Lipscomb appropriate the money to
his own use, or consciously allow Fields to
do it?' Mr.. Beach remarked in conclusion.
1T Is impossible to show how much Fields
got and how much Lipscomb got; but Lips
comb got some part of 1t and allowed Fields
to practically dissipate the fund
The jury was admonished by Mr. Beach
to bear in mind that Mr.. Lipscomb was pre-
sumed to be innocent of the charge until the
government had established his guilt be-
yond a reasonable doubt.
In Behalf Of Defendant.
AT the opening OF the session this after
noon Attorney Mitchell made an expIana-
tory statement to the jury in behalf of
the defendant. MIR. Lipscomb, the speaker
said, may have been careless. as receiver
In the Beneficial Endowment case. but
criminality could not be properly ascribed
to him.
Mr.. Fields was the active receiver. ac-
cording to Attorney Mitchell. CounseI
added that Fields made away with the
money. and admitted his guilt in q letter
written to Mr.. Lipscomb.
Fields was fugitive from justice for
nearly year, the jury was told, and was
finally apprehended by detective at
Rayville. n J., where he was living under
an assumed name.
DR.. William p. Young. secretary OF the
Franklin Fire Insurance Company. was
the first witness called by the govern
ment. He testified regarding the purchase
OF the property on 10th street between D
and K streets that was formerly owned
by the Washington Beneficial Endowment
Association.
The government then offered In evidences
number Of reports and other papers that
constitute part OF the record In the equity
case OF the Washington Beneficial Endow-
ment Association against the Commercial
Alliance Life Insurance Company. The
same papera were offered In svtdepas dur