Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-03-21
NEW TRIAL MOTION
FILED BY SINCLAIR
Oil Magnate Charges Judges
Instructions Denied Him
Jury Rights.

Claiming he was denied the right
of trial by jury under the instruc-
lions of Justice Hitz in his recent
trial for contempt of the Senate
Harry f. Sinclair. oil magnate OF
New York, today filed a motion for a
new trial. Hearing on the motion is
scheduled for March %. Nineteen
other reasons for granting the new
trial are set forth in the motion
filed by Attorneys George p. Hoover
and Martin w. Littleton.
United States Attorney Gordon and
Attorneys Atlee Pomerene and Owen
J. Roberts for the Government ac-
knowledged service of the motion
and will appear in opposition to it.
Sinclair was convicted after hours
elaboration by the jury, which is I'M
derstood to have stood IL for convic
ton and 1 for acquittal throughout
the balloting.
Should Justice Hitz overrule the mo-
ton, he will impose sentence, which
may range from | to II months in
the District Jail and a fine Of from
500 to $1,000. Appeal to the Court OF
Appeals would then be noted.
20 Reasons Given.
The motion for the new trial reads
Harry F. Sinclair, by his attorneys
Martin w. Littleton and George +
Hoover, moves the court to set aside
the verdict Of the jury and grant
new trial for the following reasons.
81. The verdict of the jury is con-
trary to law. 49,
"2. The verdict Of the jury Is with
out support in the evidence.
IS. Error of the court in denying
the motion of the defendant to direct
the jury to return a verdict or not
guilty on the first. fourth, fifth and
ninth counts of the indictment
20. Error Of the court in ruling and
holding that the question of pertinency
involved only matter of law to be
determined by the court.
"5. Error Of the court in refusing
to submit to the jury the question OF
pertinency as one Of the essentlal
ingredients of the offense alleged in
the indictment.
sc. The court, in refusing to sub
nit to the jury the determination OF
the pertinency of the questions set OUT
in the Indictment, thereby denied to
The defendant the right of trial by
Jury guaranteed him under the Con
stitution of the United States.
az. Error of the court in instruct
ing the jury-"The court lnstructS you
that the only questions submitted Tor
your consideration are as follows
Whether the defendant was summoned
as charged in the indictment, whether
he appeared before this committee IN
Washington as charged in the indict
xxrIaA sworn
charged, whether questions set forth
in the first, fourth, fifth and ninth
counts of the indictment were put tc
the defendant, and whether the de
PENDANT refused to answer those ques
tons or any Of them'-thereby In
effect directing the jury to return a
special verdict, and thus denying to
the defendant the right of trial by
jury guaranteed him under the Con
stitution of the United States.
Authority of Committee.
"s. Error of the court in holding
and ruling that the questions set out
in the first, fourth, fifth and ninth
counts Of the indictment were peril
nent to any matter under inquiry be
fore the Senate committee on public
lands and surveys, which said matter
under inquiry was within the bounds
Of the authority Of said committee.
"9. Error of the court in holding
that the evidence in the case was suf-
ficient in law to support finding
that the questions set OUT in the first,
fourth, fifth and ninth counts Of the
indictment were pertinent to any mat
ter under inquiry before the Senate
committee on public lands and sur
Ill, III dC IF
the authority of said committee.
40. Error Of the court in holding
and determining that the evidence in
the case vas sufficient in law to sup
port a finding that the defendant was
summoned to appear before the Sen
ate committee on public lands and
surveys.
III. Error OF the court in holding
that, at the time the defendant APP
peared before the Senate committee
on Public Lands and Surveys on
December 4, 1928, the said committee
was acting under authority conferred
upon 1t by any resolution duly adopted
by the Senate of the United States,
authorizing and empowering said
committee to summon and swear
witnesses.
"12. Error of the court in holding
that the chairman Of the Senate COM
mittee on Public Lands and Surveys
was authorized and empowered to
administer an oath TO the defendant
on December A, 1928.
"I3. Error Of the court in sustain
ing the objection of the United States
to evidence offered by the defendant,
and in rejecting the evidence so
offered.
Question OF Willfulness.
IA. Error of the court in holding
and determining that it was NOT neces'
sary for the United States to establish
bv evidence that the defendant Will
fully refused to answer the questions
set out in the first, fourth fifth and
ninth counts Of the indictment.
"15. Error of the court in rejecting
evidence offered by the defendant for
the purpose Of showing that at the
time he appeared before the Senate
committee on public lands and surveys
he was acting on the advice or coun'
sci. that the refusal of the defendant
TO answer the questions propounded to
him was based upon the advice of
counsel. and in SO doing the defendant
was acting honestly and in good faith.
"16. Error of the court in holding
and determining that, even though
the defendant sought and obtained the
advice of counsel and In declining to
answer the questions propounded to
him as set out In the first, fourth
fifth and ninth counts Of the indict
ment he acted upon such advice
honestly and in good faith, this would
not constitute a defense to the charge
set forth in the indictment.
"17. Error of the court in refusing
tn hold and determine that the de-
PENDANT, appearing as a witness be.
fore the committee on public lands
and surveys, rightfully might refuse
TO answer any question where the