Evening star., 1933-06-05
COURT UPH0LDS
RULING WAMHER
MUST STAND TRIAL
Appeal Tribunal Says Lawyer
Should Welcome Chance
to Face Charge.
EVASION OF INCOME
TAXES Is ALLEGED
Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus
Had Been Dismissed by Dis
trict Supreme Court.

The District Court of Appeals ruled
today that T. Morris Wampler, promi-
nent local attorney, must stand trial In
Baltimore on charge of attempting
to evade the payment of income taxes
by filing a false return.
Wampler, through Attorney william
E. Leahy, had applied to the District
Supreme Court for a writ of habeas
corpus after United States Commits
sioner Needham c. Turnage had or
dered him sent to Baltimore for trial.
The District Supreme Court dismissed
the petition for the writ and the ap-
peal was taken.
Counsel for Wampler relied on two
points. The first was that the Dis
trlct Court Of Maryland, which had
issued bench warrant for his arrest
IoHoWlng the return of the indictment.
was without jurisdiction in the case.
because his tax return was mailed in
washington, and if there was any Of
tense 1t was committed in the Dis
trlct OF Columbia and not in Mary.
land. The Court Of Appeals held this
contention was without merit, pointing
OUT tnat an income tax return is not
made" within the meaning of the law
until 1t Is received by the collector.
ana that the mere act of mailing does
not constitute the making of a re-
turn.
Point Without Merit.
The second point raised was that. at
the hearing before the commissioner.
Wampler was not allowed to offer evil
dence to show lack Of probable cause.
we nave examined the transcript of
evidence certified to lis on the appeal
the court said, land we think that this
point, too, Is without merit. The eyi-
dence tending to show lack of probable
cause which the petitioned offered was
evidence tending to show good faith
and honesty in the compilation of his
income tax return. There was no de-
NAL that the return was filed, but the
effort was to show that the petitioner
was not guilty Of wrongdoing. Addi-
tional evidence would have been merely
cumulative, but it was not for the COM
missioner to weigh the evidence. He
does not function as a trial court, It
Is for the district court in which the
indictment is found to try the issue.
In removal proceeding, the Govern
ment is not required to do more than
show reasonable ground to believe the
accused guilty, and this was supplied
by the Indictment and the identifica-
ton Of the petitioner as the person
charged therein. Disputed questions Of
fact, especially where they involve the
question of intent, as in this case,
should never be considered on the ques-
ton of probable cause"
Should Welcome Trial.
In concluding its opinion, the court
said:
Petitioner, who is a prominent men,
ber of the bar of the District of Co
lumbia, should welcome the opportunity
for an immediate trial. and since the
distance between Washington and
Baltimore involves no serious expense
or inconvenience, there exists no ele-
ment in the case of hardship some
times found in removal cases."
The Government was represented on
the appeal by United States Attorney
Leo A. Rover, Assistant United States
Attorney Charles B. Murray and John
H. McEvers, all of Washington, and
Simon E. Sobeloff of Baltimore.