Evening star., 1918-06-15
NASH FINED $1,000;
MAKES SNODEFENSE
NoIo Contendere Plea Enter
ed to Charge of Hoarding at
Trial of Case.
HIS WIFE GIVEN LIBERTY

DR.. Francis S. Nash. medical di
rector. U. S. N, charged with hoard
ing foodstuffs to the value of $1,000.
at his home. 1928 Q street. was ar
raigned today before Justice Staf-
ford in Criminal Division No. 1.
He entered a plea of nolo conten-
dere. This means that while not ad-
guilt, he will make no de-
ed to accept the sentence Of the
court.
Justice Stafford imposed a fine of
81 900. This was paid by DR.. Nash.
Mrs. Nash Goes Free.
With the case against DIR. Nash dis
posed OF. the government dismissed
the charge against his wife, Caroline
r. Nash, jointly indicted with nim.
United States Attorney Laskey eN-
planned that his Investigation con-
vinced him that. as head of .he house
hold, DR.. Nash was solely responsible
for the laws violation. lie accord
ingly asked permission 10 rolle pros
the Indictment. -xnicl was granted
by the court
Arrayed in the full uniform of his
rank as a Navy captain, DR.. Nash
stood at the bar of the court. After
waving the formality of hearing the
Indictment read, he announced his
plea of nolo contendere. The lawyers
made their statements to the court.
The clerk asked the naval officer if
he had anything further to say why
posed. DR.. Nash responded in the
negative.
Food Hoard Libeled.
United States Attorney Laskey, on
behalf of the food administration,
filed in the District Supreme Court
today a libel under the food conserva-
tion act against certain of the hoard
ed stock of food found in the home of
DR.. Nash. Much of the food products
SO found do not fall under the in
hibition of the anti-hoarding act and
will be returned to him..
Such products as are liable to seizure
and sale will be disposed of by order
of the court. The net returns will
be paid over to the naval officer under
the laws provisions, it is understood.
United States Attorney Laskey told
Justice Stafford that in view OF the
TACT that the food administration had
learned that SO per cent III the food
products found in the home of DR..
NASH had been purchased prior to the
declaration of war with Germany and
that practically all the remaining 20
per. cent had been purchased by DR.
Nash prior to the passage of the food
conservation act he would recommend
the acceptance of the plea and the
imposition of such fine as the court
might deem proper.
The prosecutor said he invited the
courts attention to the fact that he
had filed a libel asking for the con-
demnation Of such of the food prod
ucts mentioned in the Indictment as
are liable for seizure and sale, and
that counsel for the defendant had
informed him no opposition would be
made to judgment Of condemnation.
DR.. Nash's Position.
In outlining to the court the posi-
tion taken by DR.. Nash, Attorney II.
Prescott Galley said:
The act of August 10, 1917. upon
winch the charge against DIR. Nash is
based, makes it an offense for any
person to willfu1ly hoard necessaries.
Foods. feeds and fuel are by the act
declared to be necessaries, and under
the act necessaries shall be deemed to
be boarded. within its meaning, when
either held, contracted for or ar
for by any person in a guam
tity in excess of his reasonable re-
by himself and dependents for a rea-
sonable time.
Many of the articles which Dr..
Nash is charged, in the Indictment
with boarding are not necessaries un-
der the provisions of the act. OF
those which do come within its defini-
tfon S5 per cent of them were pur-
chased before this country entered
upon the war with Germany, and
all the remainder were
before the passage of the
act.
This supply of foodstuffs was ac-
quired by DR.. Nash not only for the
use of himself and family, but to bet
ter enable him to carry on his work
Of practical individual charity which
he has been engaged in for many
years and for which he is well known
in this community and elsewhere, as
8 evidenced not only by his work, but
by many letters and messages l have
received from some of those who have
been recipients Of his bounty.
Would Not Impede Good Work.
Having acquired the goods in con-
troversy at a time when he had a law
ful right to purchase them, having no
lctual knowledge of the provisions of
The subsequent statute, and in the alb
sence of any regulations promulgated
oy the local food administration con-
rolling the subject. DIR. Nash acted in
he belief that he had a perfect right
20 hold the same. Having now been
advised of it's provisions and mindful
If the fact that the law was enacted
20 aid in the successful prosecution of
he war. without being conscious of
my guilt or wrong-doing on his part,
Dr.. Nash is unwilling to do aught that
night hamper, in the slightest degree,
he prosecution of the war or to i'm
)ede the good work being done by the
,ood administration throughout the
I'm these circumstances DR.. Nash
lecided. with the permission of the
court. to interpose to the charge made
against him plea Of nolo contendere.
which in law means that, without ac-
guilt, he will not contest
he charge, but submit the matter to
he court for such action as it is
ieemed proper to take"
Il EARS | AW FOR Federal