The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-12-26


| knew anything definite which tended
TO sustain the Indictment. Two of the
| leading witnesses for the state before
| the grand jury were consptcuously
| absent, though they had been recog-
| nized for their appearance. The wit
nesses were not even cross-examined,
| the case being dismissed on their d.
rect testimo ny.
Testimony tended TO show that wo
men of questionable character had
been guests at the hotel but the wit
| nesses said that when Manager
Stevens was so informed they were
elected. The case proved complete
fasco, and the charges embraced in
the indictment collapsed like house
of cards. 1t was an absurd debaele.
The men named were officers and
stock holders in the small corporation
owning the Dan Hotel, a building
formerly used as a girls school. Mr..
Stevens was employed as manager.
Tho Greensboro Record said:
After a hearing lasting twenty
minutes. the Danvile Realty Codpora-
ton officers were exonerated of a
charge of keeping a house of I'll fame
at the Hotel Dan in the Mayors Court
this morning. Only few witnesses
for the Commonwealth were put upon
The two principal witnesses for the
Commonwealth could not be found"
The Times Dispatch said:
Mayor Wooding. after examining
witnesses for about fifteen minutes
today, dismissed indictments brought
against the Danville Realty Company,
which owns the Hotel Dan. The two
witnesses on whom the Commonwealth
was relying did not answer when their
la H4 a CT tf1ln nv
Of one policeman was TO the effect
that the hotel was conducted as well
as any here Other witnesses said
they knew little about the hotel, and
when they were cross examined by
the Mayor. no detrimental evidence
was brought out"
Tho Baltimore Sun said:
"Ofncers Of the Danville Realty
Corporation. indicted two weeks ago
for operating the Hotel Dan as dis
orderly house, were exonerated this
morning in Police Court after TWEEN
ty minutes trial.
The two witnesses on whom the
Commonwealth was relying were not
present and the other witnesses gave
no damaging evidence. The Mayor
threw the cases out of court without
hearing witnesses for the defense.
wv. Mcdonald Lee. Irvington; ST.
Reams, Lynchburg, and T. w. Stew
ems, Danville. were present to refute
the charges. Some Of the States
most prominent men in religious and
civic life attended the hearing"
The Danvtllc Bee said:
The widely exploited inquisition Of
the grand jury at the recent term OF
. the Corporation Court as the result
Of which a bill of indictment was re-
St af3 d.
ers and manager Of the Dan Hotel
! Company, corporation. owning a
hosiery of that name in this city,
ended in a complete fasco so far as
any evidence tending to connect the
men indicted with any moral or Grim
| inal responsible for conditions COM
planned of is concerned.
The charge being a misd emeanor.
was triable by the Mayor or any other
magistrate. The indictment was &C
cordingly certified 10 Mayor Wooding
and trial was begun at 10 A. NJ, to-
day. The defendants and their coun-
sci were all in court, Mr. William
Leigh, of the Danville bar. having
been retained by them. A police Off
Ger and several citizens, who had been
subpoenaed as witnesses before the
| grand jury. were put on the stand.
and were requested by Mayor Wood
| ing as to their knowledge of any Of
| Tense tending to sustain the indict-
| ment.
THE police officer testified that wo-
men OF doubtful or unchaste charac-
ter had stopped at the hotel. but on
cross examination he admitted that
the same was true of other hotels in
the city.
! THE other witnesses offered no tes-
timony tending to sustain the charges
| embraced in the indictment. Prac-
tically all of them knew nothing but
what they had heard. One by one
! the deponents were requested to stand
aside. only the police officer being
asked any question by the counsel
| for the defendants.
Two men who had been witnesses
before the grand jury and on whose
testimony the indictment Is said to
have been mainly based, were not
present in court though they had
been recognized in the usual sums to
| appear as witnesses.
THE evidence adduced utterly
, failed to sustain the charge. Accord
ingly. without hearing any testimony
which the defendant might desire to
introduce, the Mayor dismissed the
| case"
| Clearly a "Spite" Case.
From the reports as taken from the
| above newspapers 1t is clear to any
discerning. unprejudiced person that
the case was spite" case, worked
up by friends of the liquor interests,
who were anxious to attack the own
ers of the Dan Hotel. and bring them
into the limelight, as workers of the
Anti Saloon League, in connection
with an evil-sounding report. The
witnesses on whose testimony the in
! dictment was chiefly based failed to
appear. and the testimony was such
that the case was summarily dis
missed by the Mayor without giving
the defense any opportunity to put
on any witnesses, of whom they had
a large number present,
This attack upon these men shows
how vindictive and shameless many
of the opponents Of prohibition are.
and how necessary it is to be on
guard when anything is published in
anti prohibition newspapers about pro-
hibition workers.
The Bryan News Leader.
But having discharged this duty TO
our brethren of printing the facts in
the case and showing how utterly I'M
warranted and cruel these charges
were. the Advocate would fail in its
duty II it did not give the facts as