Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-06-13
TO ADMIT EVIDENCE:
Effect Of a Ruling Today by
Justice Gould
In GREEN-DoREMUS CASE
Prior Relations with Geo. W. Beavers
Point ct Issue.
LONG ARGUMENT By COUNSEL
Court Was Of the View Yesterday
That Same Matter should
Be Excluded.


concerning prior relations Of Green ana
George w. Beavers as bearing upon the
question of the guilt or innocense OF the
defendant Green In the present trial.
When the question arose yesterday the
court announced the view that the evidence
should be excluded on the ground that 1t
might lead the jury to confuse the issues
of the case on trial with those Of the con-
spiracy case in which Mr.. Green was re-
Gently acquitted
Opposite View Yesterday.
The court today announced the opposite
opinion. stating that 1t was supported by
the preponderance of authorities. Also.
Justice Gould stated, he had taken into
consideration the fact that the defendant
Green is being tried not only under an In
dictment charging conspiracy. but under
one alleging bribery. which was not the
case In the former trial.
This fact. the court held, strengthened the
contention that the evidence should not be
excluded because It was used in the for
mer trial.
Justice Gould said he was embarrassed
In passing upon the point by the peculiar
circumstances OF the defendant Green in
the case. At first blush. he said, it would
seem that the checks used as evidence In
the former trial should not again be al
mitted but the court held that, considering
weight of authority gathered from other
decisions. the evidence should be admitted.
Court Explains Plainly.
Justice Gould explained plainly that the
court admitted the checks not as simply
showing prior relations. but as allowing a
possible inference of guilt In the present
case. Justice Gould in making this state
ment announced that the position gave
the defense all of the benefit OF a possible
error on the part Of the court. The evil
dence In dispute consisted Of checks drawn
in favor of Green and Endorsed by him as
president of the Bundy Time Recording
Company and the International Time Re-
cording Company before the period alleged
In the indictments now before the court.
The arguments were made by Assistant
United States Attorney Stuart Mcnamara
for the government and Attorney A. s.
Worthfngton for the defense.
Question Of Admissibility Argued.
Argument on the question Of the admIs-
sibility OF evidence relating to alleged
transactions between Green and George w.
Justice Gould this morning. Assistant Uni
ted States Attorney Stuart Mcnamara
opened for the government. laying down
two broad propositions in support OF the
contention for the admissibility of the EVIL
dence The first was that prior business
charged with conspiracy should be admit
ted as showing their intimacy and as prov
ing collateral circumstances. This. Mr..
Mcnamara claimed fell under the head of
what the court had yesterday termed
kindergarten law.
The second proposition was that evidence
should be admitted as tending to show that
the acts charged In the indictments at bar
belonged to a series of acts showing q
fixed and general design ranging over q
period of many years
Purpose of Repelling Suggestion.
Mr. Mcnamara argued that under this
heac the court should allow evidence Of
fe,ed for the purpose of repelling the sug-
gestion that the acts In question might be
attributed to accident or coincidence. The
government, Mr.. Mcnamara stated, was
trying a case belonging to class which
carnot be proved by direct evidence but
which depends upon collateral and circum-
stGntiai proof. He contended that the
scope of the trial should not be confined
to the exact period set forth In the indict-
ments but should embrace prior periods
for the purpose not of showing crfminality
In the transactions thus detailed. but OF re-
vealing fixed and definite design.
eff previous relations are relevant" coun-
sci declared. 1.-The fact that they tend to in
eliminate does not make them irrelevant"
Mr.. Mcnamara called attention to the
fact that the defendant Green Is on trial
under two indictments, one OF which
charges bribery.
Checks Should Not Be Excluded.
The checks the introduction of which was
opposed by the defense. he claimed, should
not be excluded from the evidence under the
present bribery Indictment because they
had been used in the former conspir acy
trial.
Continuing his argument, Mr.. Mcnamara
said that the government was confronted
by the fact that the defendant Green had
figured in many business capacities in re-
lation to the acts charged in the indict-
ments. But the government proposed to
show, he added, that the same person, the
same hand and the same motive was re-
vealed in long line of acts preceding the
transactions alleged in the indictments be-
fore the court
Mr.. MCNAMARA cited authorities In the
progress OF his argument to support his con-
tentions.
Attorney A. s. Worthington of counsel for
the defense began his argument against the
admissibiIity Of the evidence in question by
stating that the government proposed to
build inference upon inference as to Green's
former business transactions and then to
ask the jury to infer guilt in the case on
trial
View of Governments Contention.
His summary of the contention Of the gov
ernment was that Green had certain ac-
counts 10 MS cTcult III oduRs Inat ne drew
certain checks. that at corresponding PEI
RODS the same amounts. or about the same
amounts. were placed to the credit of
George w. Beavers. that therefore Green
paid money to Beavers directly. and there
fore he bribed Beavers. and. finally, that
therefore he had been guilty OF criminal In
tent in the transactions alleged in the In
dictments now before the court
This line OF reasoning. Mr.. Worthington
claimed, was nothing more than building
differences one upon another.
Counsel sought to refufe. the claim of the
government that the evidence should be adj
mitted as applying to the bribery indict-
ment and not to the one alleging con-
spiracy. He said ell OF the charges were
60 intimately related that they were not
reasonably subject to the wide separation
Indicated by the contention of the govern
ment.
1rr. Worthington's Assertion.
Mr.. Worthington asserted that the atti-
tuds Of the government toward the defen-
dant Green was such a. to threaten his
constitutional rights.
.sTho district attorney Mr.. Wcrthington
declared. has stated that he proposes to
60 on trying the Defendant until he con-