The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1913-08-21
No Verdict on Two Counts
Judge Van Fleet Fixes
Bonds at $4,000.
DEFENCE ASSAILS GIRL
Says She Dragged Defendant
Down and Wrecked
His Home.

].
first four counts charging him with taking
Marsha Warrington ana Lola Norris to
Reno from Sacramento for improper pur-
poses and charging him with buying a
ticket for each girl for the purpose OF
taking them to Reno for improper pur-
poses.
The jury reported NO verdict" on
counts i've and six. charging him with
inducing and persuading the
girls to go to Reno from Sacramento.
Judge Van Fleet flxed his bonds at
$50. 900. 5000 on each count.
Judge Van Fleet set Tuesday as the
date OF the trial OF Drew Caminetti.
charged with an offence similar to that Of
Diggs. and set Tuesday also for the trial
Of Diggs and Attorney Harris on the
charge Of subornation OF perjury.
The case went to the Jury late In
the afternoon after Government Prosecu-
tors Roche and sullivan had scored the
defendant mercilessly.
When the closing speeches were ended
Judge Van Fleet spent half an hour In
making his charge to the Jury.
Prosecutor Roche stripped the defend
ant OF every vestgc of excuse and ex-
planation OF his elopement with Miss
Warrington and denounced Dggs's deser-
tion of his young wife and baby girl at
the time OF the Reno escapade. Roche
recalled the orgies in the Sacramento
Office Of Diggs. admitted by the defend
ant on the witness stand. and accused
him OF running other girls besides Marsha
Warrington.
The prosecutor called the attention of
the jury to the fact admitted by Diggs.
that the defendant had induced his wife
TO invite Marsha to attend a dinner at his
home despite the relations existing be-
tween him and the girl.
Says Charse Was Not De.ied.
defence here" said Roche. there has been
no attempt to deny that Digs ruined
Miss Warrington bought her tNkets FOR
the Reno trip and carried on relations
with her in Reno on the promise OF dl-
vorcing his wife and marrying his COM
panion. Neither has II been contradicted
that Miss Lola Norris was Induced to
enter upon the Reno escapade through n
similar promise made by Drew Cami-
netti.'
'Tueu Nv uttlarlnG mat the
people Of the whole country had their
eyes fixed on this jury and they demanded
that men like DiGgs should be punished.
Attorney Devlin. for the defence. con-
tended that n saloon keeper practically
threw Marsha Warrington at Diggs's
head and after that the girl pursued him
We have proved Devlin said, tina,
the only motive for the Reno trip was
that Dggs was apprchensive of a public
scandal. His father was after him. His
uncle was after him. lie thought the
Juvenile Court authorities were after him.
And he was afraid that Miss Warning.
tons father was after him. lie did no;
want to take Miss Warrington with him
She forced herself upon him and insist ed
on joining him when he decided to leave
town"
Devlin referred to Marsha Warrington
as the woman who dragged Digs down
and wrecked the home OF that good wife
Mrs. Diggs." lie asserted there was no
immoral motive on the part OF Digs 70,
going TO Reno with Miss Warrington. as
he had already had relations with her in
California. He declared Miss Warrinston
and Miss Norris fed to Reno because OF
their fears OF being sent to n reform
school.
You cannot render a verdict upon the
law In this case that will stamp this de-
fendant as white savcr' said Devlin
You must not place the stigma of a con.
vict on him. Are you going to make his
wife bear the shame OF being the wife Of
Il white SLAYER and a convict"
Prosecutor Sullivan followed Devlin, but
produced no new arguments.
Judge Van Fleet in charging the jury
made 1t plain that In his opinion the evi
| dence and the circumstances OF the case
were such az to warrant conviction. II.
| referred to the alleged attempt OF Diggs
and Harris to suborn the testimony OF
Miss Warrington. and said:
EnouGh Evidence "a Convict.
"The evidence introduced by the Gov
| ern,ncnt is sufficient In law to convic,
| this defendant. but whether or not /,
| is sufficient to convince YOU that verdict
| of guilty should be brought IN Is for YOU
| to determine.
The defendant went upon the stand
| to testify In his own behalf tie did not
| however. testify beyond the point where
| the four young people were about to board
| the train for Reno. Since he did not ties.
| iify concerning the entire transa ction yoy
have n right to take this omission into
| consideration. And II he has failed t1
| explain or deny any OF the testimony In
| troduced against him by reason of his
| omissions such failure may be considered
by you. II Is legal inference that hs
would have denied or explained thes.
things had he been able 20.
"If you find that these girls were actu
ally taken to Reno by the defendant a,
charged In the indictment. then only the
question OF intent remains for you to de.
termine The reason advanced by the
defence 10 not one which will appeal tc
your common sense. especially wher
taken in conneotion With the acts OF
the defendant, and you are not COM
pelied to believe II. There 10 a homel,
| saying that acts speak louder than words
From their acts you may determine thei,
| intent Even II you believe that the
| young men themselves were frightened
into running away from Sacramento. Il
you ftnd that they took these girls &c
Reno you may ind the defendant
| guilty"