Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1922-03-03
FRANK STUART
ADMITS ne
HAD PISTOL
Cross Examination Made by
Attorney John S.
Barbour
AFTERNOON SESSION
Witness in Divorce Probe Unable to
Say Judge Benefited From Di-
yorces Granted.

When the Bar Association COM
mittee which is investigating the dl
vorcc situation in Alexandria con
vened this morning, j. Randall Cation
secretary of the comm;ittee, stated
that Rev. DR.. REGISTER wished u
make {; statement in connection with
the request of the Ministerial Associ-
alton that grand jury investigation
be instigated.
DR.. REGISTER stated that it had
come to the attention of the Minis
terial Association that statements
were being made to the effect that the
association lacked confidence in the
investigation being conducted By the
Bar Association, and he wished to re-
lieve that impression: that the Minis
terial Association had every confidence
in the Bar Associations investigation,
and desired to render every assistance
POSSIBLE in clearing up the situation.
Mr.. Cation submitted a supplement
tary report Of cases he had examined
in the Circuit and Corporation courts
for period of two years prior to
Judge Moncure's elevation to the
bench, and found that during that
period 3G cases had been handled by
the firm Of Moncure, Davis & Bud
wesky, 33 in the Circuit Court and 3
in the Corporation Court, III which
Mrs. Mary L. Baggett had been used
as witness to the residence OF the
complainant, and that for period OF
seven months in 1909 the average
number of people claiming residence in
Mrs. Baggett's house was approxi-
mately 81. Mr.. Cation stated he had
in his possession letters, SONG of them
anonymous and some signeds relating
to cases in~Mhich the writer's claimed
that they had been injured b? irregu-
lar procedure; that he had written
to those persons who signed the letters
requesting that they appear before the
INVESTIGATING committc, but that none
Of them had been heard from further.
Chairman Smith stated that he had
received letter from Delegate
Charles Henry Smith, at Richmond,
obircting to the statement having been
published that certain papers which
were charged to him were missing
from the Office of the clerk of the
court The chairman stated that there
was no implication Of any irragularity
on the part of Mr.. Smith, but that the
statement was simply made that cer-
tain papers were missing from the
| records, and that they were charged
to certain attorneys.
/ Attorney Frank Stuart was then
asked to take the stand, and was
cross-cxam;ned by Attorney John S.
Barbour. OF Fairfax. counsel for
Judge Morcurc. Under the question
ing of Mr.. Barbour, Mr.. Stuart stated
he had been practicing law since about
1913, and had been located in Alex
andria since May, 1920. He stated
that ut Judge Moncure's insistence he
had occupied the judges country
house from about October, 1920, 10
April 1921. for which he paid NJ
rent, but it was agreed that he should
pay telephone and electric light bills
and taxes, but that although he had
offered to pay taxes, Judge Moncure
had declined 10 accept a settlement,
but had called his attention to certain
articles Of broken furniture, and de-
facement of pairS on the house. for
which the judge declined to accept
payment.
Mr.. Stuart stated that Judge Mon
cure on many occasions had urged him
to go after divorce practice, which he
always declined to do; that the Judge
insisted upon Stuart going to his Of
iire early in the morning, and remain
ling there during the lunch hour when
other attorneys were out OF their Of
fees. thereby securing clients.
Mr.. Stuart stated that finally, At
torney Charles Henry Smith, at the
request of Judge Moncurc, went tc
Stuart with papers in divorce case
and requested Stuart TO sign the an
swer to the complaint, which he did or
the assurance Of Attorney Smith that
Y(everything was in order. That later
the Judge spoke to him about some r.
regularity in the case, which was
= styled Baggett vs.. Baggett, and sew
eral times later his attention was
called to it BY the Judge, until he be,
gan to think he must have committed
some heinous ofense in signing the
papers. He said the impression in his
: mind was that the Judge wanted tt
say that he, Stuart, was guilty of
practices Of which possibly the Judge
himself was guilty.
In his earlier testimony Mr.. Stuart
said that before conlingt Alexandria
he had heard good deal about the
conditions here: that ne had under.
TODD that Alexandria was controlled
= by a gang of politicians. and that tbs
udge Of the CORPORATION Court was
art and parcel of this gang.