The Washington herald., 1922-07-25
District Attorney to Fight
KnickerbOcker Case
To Finish.
CONVICTION HELD
TO BE DOUBTFUL
Justice Sidd ons Rules
Indictments Fail to
Fix Blame.

Whether the demurrers filed by
The five men indicted on manslauGh-
ter charges in connection with the
collapse of the Knickerbocker'T Thea
ter roof. and which were sustained
by a decision handed down by JUS
tice- Frederick l. Siddons. in Crimi-
nal Court are legal. will be decided
!, by the District Court of Appeals
according to District Attorney Pey-
ton Gordon, who noted an appeal
yesterday.
Six months will probably pass be-
fore the Appellate Court will be
prepared to, hesF arguments and
pass upon the Gale, but District At
torney Gordon, who drew the In
1ictments against Reginald w.
Geare, architect; John Howard
Ford, ironwork contractor; Richard
,. Fletcher. cement contractors
Donald Wallace, building con-
tractor foreman and Julius r.
Downman, building inspector. will
lose no time in pushing the case to
I finish, IL was stated yesterday.
Indictments Defective.
The decision of, Justice Siddons.
which covers twenty-three pages.
and relates to the catastrophe in
which 81 PERSONS lost their lives
and 103 were injured. amounts to
the biggest defeat sustained by
Gordon since he took office. As Is
usual the District attorney win
held comment. but he frowned hard
when he glanced at the cardboard
model of the wrecked theater in his
office.
II the Court of Appeals reverses
Justice Siddons. it will not be nee
essary to draw a new Indictment. II
, Justice Siddons is upheld. what will
be done is a matter of conjecture.
The District attorney refused to
state what his course would be in
that event.
Justice Siddons found fault with the
Indictment in that 1t states con-
slasions and not facts
Mention Death of Friends.
That the job of sustaining the de-
nurrer was not altogether pleasant
,ne for Justice Siddons is shown by
pome OF his remarks in the opinion
He says:
There can be no reasonable doubt
hat all engaged IN the investigation
lid so with a deep and solemn sense
Of the grave responsibility resting
1pon them, and the writer Of this
opinion has approached his part with
an abiding sense not only of judicial
iuty, but of personal sorrow for the
loss, in the disaster. of a friend Of
twenty-five years standing. and that
friends wife.
THE court Is of the opinion rnat
such a case presents one of great pub
ic interest and concern and that the
public is entitled to be informed in
language as free from legal termi-
aology as practicable and as simple
as possible. what the case Is, as it Is
presented to the court for judicial
action and the reasons for the courts
opinion and judgment in the prem
ses."
The word negligence" as 1t occurs
m the indictment. Is too vague and
indefinite. according to the opinion,
nor. does the indictment determine
definitely. the court stated. just how
each and all of the defendants had
been negligent in order that such a
catastrophe would happen
Occasion. No Surprise.
In this respect the court stated that
I'VE must know what he (meaning
,ne of the defendants) ought to have
lone, which he has wholly omitted to
10, or what he has failed to do in a
proper manner after undertaking.
and not until then can 1t be perceived
whether he has been negligent or
not"
The governments charge Of negli-
yence was general. the court stated.
and not specific enough Moreover.
Justice Siddons held. a charge made
N this manner Is not in harmony with
the commanding rule Of Federal
courts
Justice siddons' decision quash-
ing the indictment came as no sur
prise to officials of the District gov
srnment While deep regret was ex-
pressed that so great a number of
persons should have lost their lives
rs the result of neglect and that the
tlleged guilty parties should es-
cape punishment, legal experts de-
.lared that Justice Siddons could
not have justihably done sother than
20 sustain the demurrers-
At the corporation counsel's
,fice 1t was pointed out that Dis
plished all he could with the SCAT
tered facts at his disposal
Unable to Place Blame.
IF ii had been possible to put
Four finger on a definite piece of
Negligence on the part of any par
| licular person or persons" Corpo-
--tion Counsel Stevens said. "crimi-
zal proceedings would have been
possible. But in criminal action 1t
s necessary to determine who is
Continued nm Pane Three