Evening star., 1938-04-27
QUASH |SORDERED
IN H|T-RUN CASE
AGAINST PARSONS
Seal Asks for NoIIe Prose-
of Representatives
Traffic Charge.
SECOND DEFENDANT
ALLOWED TO FORFEIT
Sister of Cleveland Attorney Says
He Will Not Return to Face
Complaint.

Corporation Counsel Elwood H. Seal
today ordered hit-run driving charges
against Representative Claude v.
Parsons, Democrat OF Illinois dropped
because he did not want Ito take the
attitude Of persecution rather than
prosecution"
Mr.. Seal conceded there might be
q technical violation OF the law in the
case, in letter instructing Oliver
e. Gasch, his Police Court assistant,
to tell the court I'VE desire to enter
q nolle PROSE- in the Parsons case"
mended that Albert D. Nesbitt, Cleve-
land, attorney who was driving an
automobile involved in collision with
Mr.. Parsons machine on the night
Of February 10, be permitted to for
felt small fine.
Mr. Gasch said he would present Mr..
Seals recommendation to Judge Walter
j. Casey in Traffic Court some time
today
Given Preliminary Hearing.
Charges of violating the hit-run
section of the traffic regulations, re-
quiring the driver OF an automobile
involved in a collision to make his
identity known and report the case
to police Immediately. were preferred
against Mr.. Parsons after prelimi-
nary hearing in February before As
sistant Corporation Counsels George
Nelson and Matt Mahorner. Mr.,
Nesbitt was charged at the same time
with failing to give the required hand
signal in pulling away from the curb.
Mrs. Margaret Ellis. sister Of Mr..
Nesbitt and owner of the car he was
driving when the collision occurred
in front Of her home at 2603 Connecti-
cutt avenue NV, said that. in view
of what she termed injustice" in
dropping the charges against Mr. Par
sons, her brother would not make any
forfeit and would refuse to come to
Washington voluntarily to stand
trial
Mr.. Seals order today overruled the
decision Of his assistants. Mr. Nelson
and Mr.. Mahorner. who held at the
preliminary hearing that Mr.. Parsons
own admission that he left the scene
of the collision without giving his
name and did not report the case i'm
mediately provided sufficient grounds
for holding him for trial.
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Mahorner said
then that conflicting testimony about
the actual collision was such that only
court could determine responsibility
for the accident
Trial Of both Mr.. Parsons and Mr..
Nesbitt had been postponed three
times to give Mr. Seal opportunity to
study the transcript of the preliminary
hearing.
Mr. Seals letter to Mr.. Gasch to-
day follows:
Il have given careful consideration
to the transcript of the testimony in
this case. and I have come to the con-
clusion that the case against de-
fendant Parsons should be nolle
pressed.
From a review Of the record, the
following facts are inescapable:
Identity Was Demanded.
81. That the accident was caused
by the defendant Nesbitt pulling from
the curb without giving proper warn
ing.
20. That after the cars of Defend
ants Parsons and Nesbitt came to-
gether. Defendant Parsons stopped his
car, returned to the scene of the acci-
dent, demanded the identity Of the
Defendant Nesbitt and stated to De-
fendant Nesbitt that the matter of
the collision would be reported.
1T seems to me that while there
may be a technical violation of the
law in this case, do not think that
the prosecuting officer should take
the attitude of persecution rather than
prosecution. and therefore ask that
you state to the court that we desire
to enter nolle PROSE- in this case.
IF, In the Nebitt case, Mr.. Nesbitt
desires to forfeit. l think you should
recommend that this be done"