The Washington bee., 1909-11-13
JUDGE KimbaII Reversed
COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINS
ATTORNEY JONES AND
CLINKSCALES. THE KIM
BALL-TILLMAN VAGRANCY
r.T- r-nCT-rTx
CASE UPSET.

In the Police Court some weeks ago
Attorneys Thomas L. Jones and Mar
ion T. Clinkscales defended a man by
the name of Jerry Fleming, charged
with vagrancy. He was convicted
the case to the Court of Appeals on
a writ of error, stating that the plain
tiff in error was tried and convicted
in the Police Court, March 80, 1909,
upon an information charging him
with being a vagrant, and the infor-
nation set forth that plaintiff in
error.
"On the 3rd" day of March in the
wear nineteen hundred and nine, at
and within the District of Columbia,
was then and there, and has been
ever since that day, and still IS d
yagrant, to wit; an idle person; per
son without visible means of sup
port; a person repeatedly in and
about the streets, avenues, alleys,
roads and highways, and leading an
idle and immoral life, found repeat
edly in and around tippling houses on
said streets and avenues, contrary to
and in violation of an act for the
preservation of the public peace and
the protection of the property in the
District of Columbia approved July
9Th. 1893, amended March 3rd, 1909,
and constituting a law of said Dis
trict (Rec. I-2.)
The District of Columbia, at the
trial of the case, produced three wit
nesses to maintain the issues on its
part joined.
The first witness George Wilson,
testified that on the evening of March
8, 1000, about Q o'clock P, m, defend
ant followed him from Ninth Street
and Pennsylvania Avenue to an al
lev at Third Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue, and as he went into the
alley to get his horse from the stable
he left the defendant and another
man standing at the mouth of the al
ley, and when he came out, defend
ant and the other man followed him
(witness) from the alley to Ninth
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, that
defendant hissed at him on the way.
On arriving there witness asked de
fendant what he wanted; defendant
replied by asking witness if he want
ed to do business and invited him in
TO a lumber yard. Witness then got
off his carriage and chased defend
ant until he was arrested. Witness
had only seen defendant once or
twice before on the avenue, had no
knowledge where he worked or what
his past life had been. The second
witness for the District (William
Main) testified substantially to- the
same effect as Wilson, excepting that
when Wilson came out of the alley
with their horse and carriage the de-
fendant with another light colored
man hallowed, Hello, Blonnie," and
"Oh, you kid, and visited ct them
Witness did not know the defendant,
had never seen him before and knew
nothing of the defendant, except
what occurred that night. The last
witness was Officer ]. H. Lee, who
said he found the two witnesses, Viii
son and Main, chasing defendant,
that defendant ran into his arms and
that he had never seen defendant
until he arrested him. (Rec., PIP. 2-3)
This was all the testimony offered by
the District.
Thereupon counsel for defendant
moved the court to discharge the de-
fendant, first, because of the insult
hciency of evidence to sustain the
charge as set forth in the informa-
ton, and, second, because the only
evidence offered against defendant in
support OF any OF the several distinct
charges of vagrancy as set forth in
the information was the testimony of
the two witnesses, which said wit
nesses only testified to one act, or at
tempted act, neither of which con-
stituted the charge of vagrancy IN
der the law covering such offenses in
the District of Columbia. The court
overruled said motion and exceptions
were noted. (Rec2 p. 81
The defendant in order TO maintain
the issue on his part Joined, produc-
ed three witnesses with himself The
first witness Frank Dunnington)
testified that he had been for several
years we'll acquainted with the de-