Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1916-04-07
RIGGS BANK MOTION
SETF0R TOMORROW
Counsel to Argue Request for
Bill of Particulars and
Early Trial.
HEARING is SCHEDULED
BEFORE JUSTICE SlDD0NS
U. S. Attorney Laskey Files Afi-
davit Denying He Delayed As
signment of the Cases.

Slgnment OF the Eases.
Justice Siddons in Criminal Division
1 will hear arguments of counsel to-
morrow morning at $3.50 o'clock on the
motions for a bill of particulars and TO
advance for trial the cases against
Charles c. Glover. William ]. Flather
and Henry II. Fiather, respectively,
president. vice president and former
asher of the Riggs National Bank,
charged with perjury Attorney George
P. Hoover of counsel for the accused Of
ficials asked for an immediate hearing.
to which the government made no OBJ
lection.
AS the time of the court had been
mapped out for today, Justice Siddons
decided to defer the hearing until to-
morrow morning. Two hours are eX-
pected to be occupied by counsel in the
argument. The court noted the absence
of the three defendants and asked If
they concurred in the argument being
made in their absence. Mr.. Hoover
assured the court that no point would
be made of the on-attendance of the
defendants.
With Mr. Hoover at the counsel table
for the defense were Attorneys j. j.
Darlington, W. G. johnson, Frank !.
Hogan and d. w. O'Donoghue. Mr..
Hoover stated that he had been dele
gated to make the opening statement
for the defense on the motions. With
United States Attorney Laskey for the
government appeared Assistant Attor-
ney General w. c. Fits and Assistant
United States Attorney Archer.
U. S. Attorney Laskey Files Affidavit
Mr.. Laskey filed an affidavit in re-
sponse to the motion and appended to
it the voluminous correspondence with
counsel for the defense concerning the
fixing of date for trial and the fur
nishing of selected bill of particulars.
He also filed a bill of particulars.
copy of which he furnished counsel for
the defense yesterday. The bill of par
ticulars comprises a large number OF
selected items typical of the different
classes of transactions shown on the
books of the defunct brokerage firm of
Lewis Johnson & Co., in the name of
the Riggs National Bank.
In his affidavit Mr.. Laskey declares
that he has not delayed the assignment
for trial of the cases, but has actually
advanced them over others equally i'm
portant and many of which have been
pending longer than the Riggs cases.
ther advancement of the case would
seriously impair the efficiency of the
prosecution and that the data in the
case cannot be properly systematiZed
and prepared for trial before May s. He
points out that he has voluntarily fur
nished bill of particulars.
Submits Copies of Correspondence.
To substahtiate his claim that he has
charge, and that in furnishing the
counsel with more specific bill of
particulars yesterday he kept his word
in this regard, United States Attorney
Laskey submits copies of his corre-
spondence with the counsel for the de-
PENDANTS.
The unusual request referred to in
Mr.. LaSkeys statement to the press IS
shown by this correspondence to have
been the asking by the defendants that
Chief Justice Covington withdraw from
the bench of Criminal Division l and
allow some other justice to preside at
the trial This request was made
through Mr. Laskey, the defense stated,
because, as district attorney. you have
the election of assigning these cases
for trial in either one of the two GRIM
inal courts" The attorneys for the de-
PENDANTS expressed readiness to meet
ment, should that be desired"
Some delay, Mr.. Laskey admits. oc-
Cured in securing definite answer
from the chief justice because of an at
important issues We're pending before
him.
The letter from the counsel for the
defendants claims the request was
Mr.. Laskey informed him that the
chief Justice had stated that he was
naturally unwilling to preside at the
trial of a case where the parties con-
cerned entertained the view which had
been expressed. especially where the
view was concurred in to any extent
by their counsel" Though he asked
several times for further information
on this point, the counsel for the de-
fendants claim that on January %. he
had received no definite reply.
District Attorneys Reply.
In a letter dated February T. Mr.
Laskey replied at length. stating that
the first intimation he had that the de-
desired an early trial was
during the conference January 6, and
that Il told them then. as the fact is.
1 had no intention or desire to post
pone or delay the trial Of the case"
In referring to the request that some
other justice than the then presiding
chief justice sit in the case. Mr.. Las |
keys letter states that the counsel for |
the defendants disclosed to me that |
your clients entertained the feeling |
that the said justice was prejudiced |
against them and that their counsel |
was compelled to concur in the de-
PENDANTS feeling upon the subject" He |
says an additional reason was given for |
referring the matter to him because |
you did not desire to spread on the |
record objections to the justice then |
presiding, because of what you claimed |
to be his prejudice"
He says that after having reported |
Justice Covington's natural unwill-
ingness to preside" etc, several sub |
sequent inquiries by counsel for the de-
PENDANTS were "of the most casual-one |
was made at lunchroOm and the other |
at a public exercise place, where Mr.. |
Hogan and i occasionally see each |
other" He claims that no promise was
made to get an answer by January 25 /
or ANY other definite time"
Mr.. Laskey writes that since the re-
turn of the chief justice after his re-
cent illness he has been engaged in an
exacting trial" He says that on the
date of writing, February 4. he was in
formed by the chief justice that he
had concluded to request me to assign
justice sitting in criminal court" but
that "as a justice he could not recog-
nize as a matter of right existing with
any defendant the exclusion of a trial |
justice for bias"
In explaining an interview of jan
uary g. referred to In the letter Of
1C01t;D,o6 an C0cr.,6 Eo0N - i