The Washington bee., 1909-11-13

years employed at No. HOS K Street,
northwest; he had never heard of de-
fendant being arrested before; that
on March 6, 1909, he met defend
ant at Seventh Street and Pennsyl-
vania Avenue; he did not remember
seeing any of the witnesses who testi-
fed against defendant on the even
ing in question; that he and defend
ant did not follow two men down to
Third Street and Pennsylvania Ave
nue., nor was it true that he or the de
fendant on the evening aforesaid hal
lowed, "Hello, Blonnie," or ooh, you
Kid" and it is not true that defend
ant asked said witnesses if they did
not want to do business or make
any other remark to them in his pres
ence; that he and defendant separat-
ed at Ninth Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue about 9.I5 p, m, and he new
er saw defendant any more until the
next day in court.
The next witness MARY R.. Flem-
ing) testified that defendant lived in
Anacostia, had good home, is 2I
years of age, never arrested before
and had been employed as a cook in
a boarding house on K Street, north
west, for two years, did not drink or
loiter around, but was a model boy
and was her son. (ReC., PIP. 3-4)
The defendant in his own behalf
testified that on the evening of March
6, 1900, he left his place of employ
ment about $50 p. m, and went down
to Seventh Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue, northwest, where he met
Frank Dunnington by engagement,
that he and said Dunnington pro-
ceeded Up Pennsylvania Avenue to
Ninth Street, where they stood and
talked for a while and then separated.
After leaving Dunnington and
while standing near the BUou Thea
ire, two white men approached him
and asked what he was standing there
for, defendant informed them that
they had nothing to do with him, and
one word brought on another. One
of the men left the carriage and chas-
ed him with a whip until he ran in
to the arms of a policeman, who plac-
ed him under arrest.
Defendant denied he followed the
witness for the prosecution up and
down Pennsylvania Avenue, and de-
MED using the words, Hello BIon-
ME-" or ooh, you kid" or that he
asked them to a lumber pile to do
business or any other place. De-
fendant further testified that he had
been employed for two years continu-
ously as cook and received as wages
$I7 per month. (Rec., p. A.
This was all the testimony offered
and the court adjudged the defend
ant guilty as charged in the informa-
ton.
Counsel for the defendant moved
the court arrest of judgment, and for
a new trial upon the following
grounds:
(a) Because of the judgment of
the court was contrary to the law
governing the case. (b) Because of
the insufficient evidence to sustain the
charge of vagrancy as set forth in
the information. (c) Because said
information is founded upon the act
of Congress of July g, 1898, which
act was repealed by the act of Con-
gress of March 3rd, 1909, as far as
the law of vagrancy is concerned in
the District of Columbia. I'D Be-
cause said information does not
change any offense, either under the
act of March 3, 1909 or under the act
of July 8, 1898, and hence the con-
viction is void. (e) And because
the act of March 3, 1900, is uncon-
stitutional and void, in that it de-
prives the accused Of the right of the
trial by jury, yet gives the trial
judge power and authority to sent
ence him to Imprisonment for a term
of one year or require him to give
bond for period of one year for his
good behavior.
The court overruled this motion
and exceptions were noted.
Thereupon the defendant was sent
enced to give bond in the sum of
5000, in default to be committed to
the Workhouse for the period of
ninety days. (Rec., PIP. 4-5.)