The Washington times., 1925-01-19
with The
IAlibi.Artists
"A Cross Section of the
Daily Grind in Judge
McMahOn's Court.
| Read EN- and Weep.
By DONALD McDOUGAL.
ITO Be Continued

10 ne OOMbAHuCU
ION July IL, 1924, 1 arrested
the defendant
July 12-and the case Is just
coming to trial? How is that?"
1.-THE case has been continued
several times
why was it continued?'
"This edefendant's cases are
always continued, your honor-the
complaining witness is generally
in the hospital"
''This is a second offense speed
charge, and no one was in
jured-"
IN such cases he usually has
an important witness In Chapul-
tapec or Anacostia-some remote
locality"
Counsel: Move to dismiss the
case, your honor. There is no
evidence that this is second
Next witness: ION September
10, 1928, the defendant was
convicted Of speeding by this
court"
Wants Pound Of Flesh
Counsel: Move the indictment
be quashed, your honor. Under
the law, conviction for the sec
ond offense must be obtained
within one year of the commits
sion of the first"
Does counsel contend that IL
a defendant can evade trial for
q year after his first offense he
cannot be held under the second
Offense proviSion?"
I'VE make no contention, your
honor. The law speaks for itself,
and with your honor's permits
sion / will read that part of the
law relating to this case" Gle
reads: Extract from Act Of
Congress, approved March 3,
1917-'Upon conviction for the
second. offense within one year
from the commission of the first
offense, fine Of not less than
$40 etc.
Congress Butts In.
Conviction for the second Of
Tense within one year from the
commission Of the first offense'--
as your honor clearly sees, the
conviction must be obtained with
in one year Of the commission
of the first offense, which in
this case, was on September 10,
1928. No conviction can now
be obtained within year OF that
date, aud a motion TO quash the
indictment. therefore, Is before
your honor"
1.-THE court cannot conceive
that the trainers Of this law in
tended any such absurdity-that
they meant to put a premium on
I<1a = HAS~ A.-ln - &H~.M
law-that If by hook or by crook,
a defendant can delay his trial
beyond certain time, the court
must impose a nghter penalty
upon him-not because of cir
cumstances attending the crime.
but merely because he succeeds
in prolonging his trial"
I'VE submit. II your honor
please. that the defendant in this
case is entitled to IrIaI under the
law as it stands, and not as the
trainers may concievably or in
conceivably have meant 1t to be-"
"CounseIs Interpretation of the
law is not in accordance with
common sense"
Lawyers Paradise.
1--WE submit that the de-
I0HQdHB Oc LLlCO IA 1NSOIO~
ance with the law, not in &C.
cordance with common sense.
1.-THE court congratulateS coun-
sells on a very logical common
sense, What has the District 8
counsel to say"
Defense counsel (sarcastically):
I'm favor of discarding the law?"
Assistant Corporation Counsel
r. w. Thomas: ct have nothing
to say in favor Of discarding the
law, il the court please. / may
have something to say later in
favor Of discarding abuse Of the
law. But the point under con-
sideration, it seems to me. is not
one of law, strictly speaking, nor
ia it a question of unrestricted
common sense. 1t is a question Of
English grammar"
Defense counsel: Good night!
He'll be Juggling in elocution
next"
Associate counsel (mincingly):
"Curfew Shall Not Ring Tonight. Z"
Mr.. Thomas: 1.-The passage
reads. upon conviction for the
second offense within one year,
etc.
1.-THE question is, does the
phrase within one year modify
conviction or does it modify of
fense?' We're all familiar with
this kind of a phrase-we speak
of the second time within a year
and this is, for instance. the
third time within two weeks that
this case has appeared for
trial"
Defense counsel: II object
He-POrtia Scores Knockout.
$50 did I. Does the passage
refer to conviction within one