Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1926-02-19

~
+ Hon. walter j. Mitchell, editor Of the
j Times Crescent, Is published by re-
quest Of the writer, Justice Of the
4 Peace r.. II. Knott, Of Indian Head
February le, 1925.
Mr.. Walter J. Mitchell, Esq,
Editor Times-Crescent.
Dear Sir:
In your paper OF February u, 1926,
you publish an anonymous article, en-
titled "a Farce TRIAL The article
names me as the Justice conducting
the trial. IL contains some very Sc
rious and even libelous charges for
which ! must hold you responsible,
unless the writer when bis name Is dis
closed proves TO be adequately respon-
sible. The article says The So
called trial was conducted by the Hon
orable Hugh Knott, twho is supposed
to be Justice Of the Peacel 10 a man
ner without precedent, as TO the selec-
tion OF the jury, evidence produced,
and the punishment given the guilty
man. v
The case evidently referred to Is that
of James Cant, who operated the car
which killed Arthur Thomas. The un-
/ fortunate victim of this disaster was a
colored man well known as mentally
so incompetent that he had several
times previously narrowly escaped a
/ like disaster, due to his own deicien-
cies Women, who had just passed
I him on the road and who we're the only
witnesses to the disaster, testified that
the poor victim was criss-crossing the
road, when they saw aim. AMI they
commented at the time on the dan
ger of his being run over. This testi-
mony had TO be taken into account in
determining the degree of responsible
ity of the operator OF the car. There
we're other circumstances of a mitigat-
ing character. The accident happened
at night, on a winding road, the curry
AZURE of which was SO sharp that the
headlights could not strike the victim
/ till ID was too late to avoid him.
Another mitigating circumstance was
this The women referred TO above
we're on the opposite side OF the road,
about 80 II. ahead of the victim going
in the same direction as the deceased
and the car, and the car whose head
| lights struck them first was Obliged TO
swerve to the left to avoid hitting them
and so struck the man in the dark on
the other side of the road The tssti-
mony went to show that the accident
must be classed as unavoidable.
Mr.. Cant should have stopped and
picked up his victim, which he failed
to do and thereby violated the law in
such cases. II however appeared to
his credit that he Immediately reported
the accident to the owner OF the car,
who at once sent the car back to look
alter the man 1t also appeared in the
evidence that defendant voluntarily
admitted that he was the operator.
After hearing all the evidence in the
case held the defendant guilty of the
legal offense of running away and
lined him 800, which the law fixes as
the penalty OF that offense.
| did not think from the evidence
that Cant could be held for man
slaughter and do not think so now.
The critic wants to know why did not
hold the owner of the car. The owner
was not present when the accident oc-
CURED and il my critic will read the
motor vehicle law he will find the own
er can not be held responsible unless
he l. there at the time of the accident
So much for the case and its treat
luc1t W lAlC % enC PhC,luAuS buotlCts
But this is not the most serious part of
the criticism. The really serious fea-
ture OF the article is the following
"Those acquainted with the facts of
the killing of this man, whether they
were present at the trial or not, know
that Justice and punishment we're not
melted out TO the guilty person. In
stead, the law was made q mockery
from beginning to end Of the whole
case. Why ? Because there was no
one present 10 fight for the dead man,
and secondly, because il justice had
been done and punishment handed out,
| ii would have hit too close home for
some men behind the scene indirectly
responsible for the whole affair. This
may seem broad statement, but let
any one or all of them come forward
with denial, If they can.
In reply 10 this challenge, positive
ly and unequivocally deny any COM
plicity with any one connected with
this trial. This libelous insinuation
is without the least foundation as far
as am concerned.
And now | challenge this anonymous
critic to state openly, plainly and
clearly Just what he means by this
yelled insinnation, am entitled to
know what he means by it in order
that may take the necessary steps to
secure redress.
Yours respectfully,
II. Il. KNOTT.