Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-12-19
SMITH CO. CASE
MAY co TO Jury
THIS AFTERNOON
Judge Expected to Begin
Final Instructions After
Luncheon Recess.
LAMBERT ENDS DEFENSE
WITH ACQUITTAL PLEA
Lawyer Declares Prosecution Has
Not Refuted Evidence Given
by G. Bryan Pitts.

With the jury expected to get the
case this afternoon, the three Defend
ants in the p. H Smith Co. conspiracy
trial today made their final bid for an
acquittal.
Before a capacity crowd In District
Supreme Court, Defense Attorney VIII
ton j. Lambert closed the defense side
OF the case with a request for a not
guilty verdict for G. Bryan Pitts G.
Ebert Anadale and John H. Ed
wards, ir.
Inc three men, former officers of
the Smith company, have been on trial
before Justice William Hitz. charged
with conspiracy to embezzle funds of
the company and to destroy its records.
In event of conviction they face a
maximum penalty of % years i'm
prtsonment and a $4,000 fire.
Judges Charge Due.
After Mr.. Lambert had concluded his
remarks, Nugent Dodds, special assist
ant to the Attorney General, closed the
Governments case. He asked that All
tnree defendants be convicted on each
OF the four counts in the indictment,
Justice HitZ is expected to deliver hia
cnarge to the jury Immediately after
the luncheon recess. The 10 men and
Two women, in whose hands rests the
rate OF the accused men, then will re.
Tire TO an ante-room to determine their
verdict.
Mr.. Lambert opened his argument
oy lnstructing the members of the Jury
on the questions of law involved In
the case. He advised them that an
indictment was merely formal charge,
ana could not be construed as evidence.
He also pointed out that, under the
law, tnere Is presumption of inno-
cence in favor Of the defendants and
that this presumption abides with them
throughout the trial until such a time
as the jurors shall be convinced by
evidence beyond q reasonable doubt Of
When defendants IN a criminal case
have been charged with Conspiracy, he
sald, It must be proved to the satisfac-
ton OF the jurors that they engaged in
some overet act IN furtherance of some
illegal purpose. Otherwise, he declared.
the mere act Of conspiring IS not Dun
lsnanle: Referring to that section Of
the indictment which charges the de-
IenoantS with the removal and destruc-
ton Of certain records, Mr.. Lannbert
argued that this must have been done
with an intent to defraud the Smith
company or some individual whose
[lgnts would In consequence of such
removal nave been adversely affected.
unless you jurors believe the de-
1epdants actually had such an inten-
Lon, ne said, lit is your duty under
the law to acquit them
Inc attorney also called the attention
OF the jury to the fact that whenever
a piece OF evidence Is susceptible to in
terpretationS-one of Innocence. the
other OF guilt-they are bound by the
law to accept the former.
Taking up the testimony offered nv
the Government in an effort to prove
That Pitts had provided Joseph Howard
MS valet, with money to escape Service
OF subpoena, MFR. Lambert commended
the prosecution had fallen short Of
proving its case in this respect,
He pointed out that Howard, while
had testified that Pitts refused tn civs
MIN money for this purpose.
Forgery Suggestion Denied.
The attorney then began a discus
sion of certain acquisitions and REGENTS
which Pitts had offered as proof of his
claim that he was legally entitled to
-SSSA'C SSA bnAIl 1llOuey WHICH the Cow
eminent charged was embezzled bv hin,
assistant United States ATTORNEY Neil
Burkinshaw, in his argument to the
Jury yesterday, suggested the possibiiitv
forged. -
This suggestion was Indignantly de-
MED by Lambert. At one point in his
argument he went so far as to ''bet the
Jury" that the acquisitions were properly
prepared. He was interrupted by
Justice Hitz, who advised the attorney
that he was not in a position to be
making betting propositions to the
jurors
Mr.. Lambert also laid great stress on
the decision by the Government not
to introduce rebuttal evidence. He con-
tended that this had the effect of leay-
Ing undisputed the testimony given by
Pitts.
When Mr.. Pitts was on the stand"
Lambert said, "he offered a plausible
explanation of every act performed by
himself and his co-defendants, upon
which the Government based the
charges contained in this indictment.
Then, when their opportunity came, the
prosecution made no effort whatsoever
to refute this testimony. It seems to
me that this act should appear highly
significant to you members of the jury"