Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1922-03-07
MRS, BACCETr
IS ACQUITTED
OF CHARGE
Justice Duvall Holds Prose-
cution Totally Failed to
Make Case
COURT EXPLAINS DUTY
Holds There Must be Two Witnesses
to Testify or One With Strong Cor
rObative Circumstances

Holding that the prosecution had
totally failed to establish prlma
facie case, Civil and Police Justice
Frederick G. Duvall shortly before 4
o'clock Yesterday afternoon, acquitted
Mrs. Mary L. Baggett Of the charge
Of making an alleged false a'fldaVit
in divorce case. The case IN qnes-
ton was that of Mrs. Isabel Wright
of Riverdale, Nd, and the complaint
against Mrs. Bagfett was made IN a
warrant sworn out at the instance OF
Thomas J. Wright Of Washington, tor
mer husband of Mrs. Wright. The de-
cision of the court was given lmmedi-
ately after arguments had been com
pleted at the afternoon session. Al
torney Edmund Burke moved to dlS-
miss the warrant and it was opposed
by Attorney Frank Stuart, the latter
representing Wright in the prosecu-
tion Of the case.
The decision of Justice Duvall fol-
lows:
"Thc mater before this court, as
see it, is not the question Of Mrs. Bag
cett's alleged activities in divorce mat
ters in the city Of Alexandria, as has
been shown by the Investigating COM
mittee or by the public press The
question before this court is the ques-
ton Of the Commonwealth against
Mrs. Mary l. Baggett, Thomas ).
Wright, prosecuting witness, and 1t IS
nv purpose to consider nothing but
the case which is before me, and |
believe that the Commonwealth, or the
prosecution in this case, has totally
failed to make out even prima facle,
or reasonable case, against Mrs. bag
gett. take it that my duty, IN the
event that prima facie or reasonable
case is madeout, is 0, send it on to the
Grand Jury in felony matters OF this
kind. Mr.. Wright's statement today,
before me. is different from the state
ment which he made to me at the day
that issued the warrant against Mrs.
Baggett, in this particular, that
did not know that at the time Mrs.
Wright was supposed to have acquired
her residence in the city Of Alexan-
dria, or was acquiring the same, Mr..
Wright was in Jail and not in posi-
ton where ne could know the facts
which he stated to me. His statement
Shere today shows that he could not
have actually known where Mrs.
Wright was living and could not have
known that she did not, during those
five months, acquire residence and
lomicile in the State of Virginia and
he city of Alexandria, at Mrs. Bag
rett's house. His statement is that
after the time when he was released
From Jail. he occasionally saw Mrs.
Wright at 800 c street, \. W.. and
hat he usually saw the child there.
That might mean that she was res
hdent and was domiciled or living at
l329 c ST., or it might mean that the
4child may have been left there by her.
5I understand that this place was
children's aid society, and the child
may have been there while her mothel'
Bwas elsewhere, acquiring this resi-
dcnce, and the mother may have been
Il there to see her child. can not be
i asked in this case. by the Common
Rwealth. to take everything for grant
ed. and I don't intend to do so. either.
d want to do what is right in this mat
Rer; | want to do what is honest: |
want to do what is fair, but don't be
ieve that even prima facie case has
been made out.
"This statement refers back to two
opposing statements which have been
made, and nothing more 1t is oath
against oath. There must be two wit
nesses to testify to the falsity of a
or one witness with strong
circumstances. con-
fc&eie that it is not my province to pass
3uA,on the guilt or innocence of the
kac@cused in this case, but it is within
nnE province ard power to seriously
6nconvenience, and subject to disgrace
6rs the community, as well as put to
great expense, persons appearing IN
: INV court by sending them on to the
Grand Jury. don't think that there
: as been a prima facie case made out
h this case. and therefore I dis
hiss it"
When the court reconvened shortly
liter , o'clock yesterday afternoon
Attorney Edmund Burke moved to
lismiss the case on the ground that
he testimony, by express purpose of
aw, was insufficient to hold the ac-
used on the charge preferred. He
eclared there was nothing in the
eposition of Mrs. Baggett to show
hat she swore that Mrs. Wright was
omiciled in Alexandria. On the con-
rary. he cited to the court. there was
Q evidence to show that Mrs. Wright
Id not live in Alexandria. Domicile,
asserted, is acquired by declaration
intention to live here, and he added
hat it does not specify a definite time.
Where you select is your domicile. he
(rgued. Another point made by Mr..