Evening star., 1922-07-05
BLAME IN .THEATER
TRAGEDY ARGUED
Defendants Hold Indictments
Should Name Owners, In
stead of Builders.

Arguments as to the sufiiciency of
the indictment for manslaughter re-
turned by the grand Jury against
Reginald W. Geare. architect; John
H. Ford, steel manufacturer; Richard
G. Fletcher, foreman Of the contract
ing flrm in charge Of tho cement
work; Donald NJ Wallace, building
contractors foreman, and Julian r.
bowman, assistant building inspec-
tor. charging negligence in the con-
struction Of the Knickerbocker The
ater. were continued today before Jus
tice Siddons in Criminal Division 2.
Former Justice Daniel Thew Wright
presented the objections Of Geare to
the Indictment. Counsel for the other
defendants were heard last week.
United States Attorney Gordon COM
bated the claims Of tho lawyers for
the defendants. and urged on tho
court the refusal of the motions to
auash and the denial OF the demurrers.
He asked that the men be held for
trial before a petit jury.
In his motion to quash on behalf Of
dictment bad for duplicity and be-
cause Of a misjoinder of parties, The
Indictment alleges, he pointed out,
that the fall Of the building resulted
in respect Of the plans: from the neg
ligence Of Ford in designing and fab
ricatfng the-steel; from the negligence
OF the cement man, the building con-
public ofacial in the discharge Of his
inspection duty. Thus the Indictment
charges different specific negligences
against each of several individuals
thus charges, he contended. several
and is bad Tor duplicity. ''n''
Negligenee Net shown.
7 As to the demurrer, two points were
stressed by Judge Wright He
claimed the Indictment sets out no
facts showing negligence Of the
architect or of any other OF the ac-
cused persons. but contains mere
statements of negligence, which he
characterised as opinions and con-
illusions Of the pleader. which. IL
on facts withheld from the accused
The indictment shows on its face. he
asserted, that even II tho defendants
were negligent their negligence was
not tho proximate cause OF death and
an indictment for granddaughter will
not lie. It In shown in the indict-
ment that tho defendants had surren-
dered the building to Its owners and
that the owners were maintaining and
operating the building, and the prod-
mate cause Of death Of the patrons
was the operation OF q detective
building by the owners.
In other words, said tho lawyer. II
the matter had stopped with what the
defendants did, even II their work
was performed negligently, nobody
would have been injured, because de-
PENDANTS had nothing to do with the
use Of the building. did not invite the
neople to be present on the day of
fhe collapse OF tho roof and. could
not have kept them out II they had
tried. ~
Reauirenent Of LAW.
United States Attorney Gordon. de-
tending the Indictment. pointed out that
a reasonable degree Of clarity Of sx-
precision ID all that the law reQuires
In an Indictment and no rule Of plead
ing oompels the setting forth Of svi-
DENTAL factA TT 10 sufficient he
said, 'ff the ultimate facts BE- stated
and no impracticable standard Of
particularity sis required In setting
forth these ultimate facts. The pres
ent indictment does not merely cnarge
that the building was negiigently
constructed. oE- that the theater was
lin a dangero6s condition, or that the
the walls and supports wore. insufa-
-. .. q