Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-12-12
|EARLY VERDICT LIKELY
| IN THE ScHUTT TRIAL
Hotel Proprietor Accused Of
Violating the District
Excise Laws.

A verdict is expected late this after
noon in the case of George F. Schutt.
proprietor of the Ebbitt House, charged
with furnishing liquor to minor The
case has been going on for three days.
and is the first case of Importance to
come up since the new excise board was
named
Corporation Counsel Syme presented his
argument to the jury this afternoon. At
torney William H. White for the defens
is to present his side before Judge Null
lowny charges the jury ana submits the
case for a verdict.
Witnesses Cross-Examined.
Detective Howes Of the first precinct,
who was on the witness stand when
court adjourned yesterday afternoon.
was again called to the stand for cross
examination by Attorney Tobriner for
the defense when the trial was re-
sumed today. The witness was asked
to describe the places about the bar
where the four bartenders stood the
night Of November Is, and served
drinks. This the witness did. AS on
fled that James Nj. Acton, a bartender,
was the one who is alleged to have
served the beer to Davis.
Frank Hagerty, head bartender, was
then recalled to the stand. He testified
that after the bar was closed the night
of the alleged violation the curtains on
the windows of the bar were opened.
He testified, also. that he and the other
bartenders cleaned up the bar that
night.
called by Corporation Counsel Syme, but
Mr. Tobriner objected, and the court
ruled he could not testify, ruling that the
government had closed its rebuttal.
The taking of testimony closed with
the evidence OF Edward Myers, another
bartender at the hotel, who stated that
he remained in the bar until 1:50 that
night and that the curtains on the f
street side remained closed.
Each side offered four prayers. The
court refused the prayers OF the de-
tense, and the government attorneys
thereupon withdrew those offered by
them.
Arguments of Counsel.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Varnell
opened the argument to the jury. He
eontended that a sale of beer had been
made to Ross Davis, minor, and that
the defendant was guilty of violating
the law. Taking up the testimony Of
Davis. he argued that the boy told his
story OF getting the beer, but did not
remember whether or not he paid for
T..
IF 1 went into a bar and asked for
glass of beer" he said, you can bet
would know whether I paid for it
or the bartender would soon let me
know"
He commended that the government had
established beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant violated the law and
therefore ought to be found guilty
Attorney Tobriner for the defense then
addressed jury. He declared it must
be believed by the jury beyond a fea-
sonable doubt that Davis was furnished
liquor by the defendant
Mr.. Syme's Contention.
In his argument Mr.. Syme, for the
prosecution, declared that the particular
law that Is alleged to have been violated
was enacted for the protection of the
homes Of this community.
Every instinct of duty, every obliga-
ton of public service, calls upon the ex-
ecutive heads of this District 10 do their
duty to the utmost limit in the enforce
ment of this lAw.' he said. They owe
to the homes Ind the future citizens of
this city to leave no stone unturned to
see that this. law is protection in fact
and not in theory. They will perform
this duty by bringing every violation
which comes to their knowledge, and
which is susceptible of proof, before this
court"
Testimony of Yesterday Afternoon.