Evening star., 1939-03-30
Judge Doubts
Evidence Ample
Al Rhodes Trial
Motion for Directed
AcquittoI Verdict
Under Consideration

voicing doubt of the sufficiency of
the evidence introduced by the Gov
ernment, District Court Justice Jesse
c. Adkins today took under con-
sideration the motion for directed
verdict of acquittal for Fred B.
Rhodes, former president of the old
Fidelity Building and Loan Associa-
ton, who Is charged with perjury.
Justice Adkins comment on the
evidence was based on the fact that
the Government mad not attempted
to develop more details about the
records in the case through the tes-
timony of Mrs. Ruth S. Horner, for
mer assistant secretary and assistant
treasurer of Fidelity.
A previous witness had expressed
the opinion that Mrs. Horner had
made entries on % ledger sheets
representing accounts in Fidelity,
which the Government charges were
withheld from regular bookkeeping
channels in making report to the
controller of the currency to which
Mr.. Rhodes SWore and on which the
perjury charge is based. She was
called on briefly yesterday to iden-
tify records, and it was asserted in
court today by William E. Leahy,
chief OF defense counsel. that the
Government had sought to "evade"
her testimony.
Leahy's Position.
Mr.. Leahy, in moving for a di-
rected verdict, had cited insuficiency
OF evidence as one ground
III this case was submitted to the
jury right now, wouldn't the jury
be justified in assuming that her
tMrs. Horner's) testimony would be
adverse?" Justice Adkins asked AS
sistant United States Attorney John
j. Wilson, the prosecutor.
Mr.. Wilson said he did not believe
so, adding that it might be felt her
testimony would be 'colored' in
favor Of the defense because she is
now employed in Mr.. Rhodes law
office.
The judge continued that the jury
would not be justified in assuming
at present that it would be helpful
to the Government and then asked
Mr.. Wilson. DO you want to call
her as witness?"
Il do not" Mr.. Wilson replied.
Justice Adkins then announced
that he would take the case under
consideration and that, because an
other case is starting this afternoon,
that the Rhodes decision would be
Monday.
The judge took over the case after
counsel had spent more than five
hours in arguing the motion to ac-
quit. ---s 49,
Mr.. Leahy had based four grounds
for this. He said the controller of
the currency did not have a right
to require the report on the condi-
ton of Fidelity as of June 30, 1885,
on which the charge is based. He
said the oath as to the correctness of
the report was not valid and he
added as third point that even if
the oath were valid the report was
not complete.
Law Requires One Report.
Mr.. Leahy's argument as to the
right of the controller to demand
the report was based IN the con-
tention that the statute requires but
one report year and that that had
been made the previous February.
In his answer today. Prosecutor
Wilson said that so narrow an in
depreciation could not be applied to
the law, because it provides for "at
least one report year.
The defense's second point on the
validity of the oath was on the
ground that 1t. was administered by
Cooper B. Rhodes, son of the de-
fendant, an attorney who also had
an interest in the association, and
that these relationships would dis
qualify him. Again the prosecution
held that the law could not be con-
strued to set up this barrier.
On the third point, the defense
argument was that the report orig
inally submitted had been amended.
Mr.. Wilson said in response to that
that "the amendment did not affect
any OF the figures in the report"
The prosecution is contending that
there was SIT 900 deficiency in the
liability statement of the report be-
cause 28 accounts were withheld.
The ledger sheets covering these
accounts were turned over to Of
f1cers of Fidelity by Mr.. Rhodes in
June. 1896, year after the report
itself went in and four months after
he had left the presidency of Fidel-
1ty, which was closed in July. 1896.
Because these reports were in his
possession in 1886 the prosecution
has attempted to establish that he
also knew they were missing from
the report to the controller in 1885.
Mr.. Leahy, in his final argument
today, declared that could not be
construed as a reasonable infer
ei1ce. 1t is the defense contention
that Mrs. Horner as executive officer
OF Fidelity was responsible for the
whereabouts of these records.
?. The present trial is the third the
former Fidelity head has faced as
= result of the closing of the insti-
tuition. On the two previous oc-
casions, he was charged with forging
= $500 deposit slip in the name of
Desire A. Irr. a retired Government
Printing Office employe. Both
juries disagreed. -.