Evening star., 1944-04-28
Girl Tells Of Career
With Hopkins Institute
Vice Trial in 5ih Day
Work During Week
In 1947 Outlined
By Witness
BY NORMAN A. KAHL.

A 23-year-old blond today de.
|scribed three-and ne-half-yea
career Of vice during which her
husband lived on her earnings whan
she testified at the trial Of seven
women charged with conspiring to
violate the Mann Act In connection
with operation Of the Hopkins IN
stitute here.
The girl, Mrs. Ronnie Stewart,
told the jury that on one occasion
her husband beat her and gave her
black eye.
did this incapacitate you for your
profession?a she was asked by De.
fense Attorney Saul Lichtenberg.
YES" she said. She added that
she had to remain out Of work for
two weeks.
Mrs. Stewart said she began her
career as a prostitute when she was
18 or 10.
Husband Is Waiter.
"Did you meet your husband as
an ostensibly respectable girl?" Mr..
Lichtenberg asked.
Il don't know what you mean," the
witness replied.
Mrs. Stewart said her father Is in
business here. Her husband, she
said, is waiter in a Philadelphia
hotel. They have been separated
for six or seven months, she testi-
fed.
The witness recalled that during
one week at the institute in 1942
she not only entertained men in the
establishment in the 2700 block Of
Connecticut avenue, but was sent
out to private homes, apartments
and hotels, including the Carlton
and Washington. On two occasions,
she said, she was sent out to keen
dates with men. One such party,
she said, was in Georgetown home.
Before going to the institute, she
said, she had worked for Florence
(Billy) White, one of the defend
lants.
Assistant United States John w.
Fihelly asked whether any money
was passed when she filled dates for
the institute and the witness replied
there was. She said she would keep
half of the proceeds.
This work you were doing at the
Hopkins Institute, without going into
details, was it prostitution" Mr.. FL
belly asked.
YES" she replied.
Names May Be Revealed.
Indications that all the names In
the Hopkins institutes 'little black
book" will be thrown open for pub
lie inspection appeared, meanwhile,
after Government witness, led on
lby Defense Attorney M. Edward
Buckley, jr, yesterday came close
to naming names.
which have come to be known as
the little black book, have not yet
Iactually been introduced into the
record. They were used, however,
by Mr.. Buckley to refresh the MEM
lory of Mildred Powell Carter, first
witness for the Government.
4 Meanwhile, Mr.. Buckley said that
ia Cleveland man, who was men,
toned by Miss Carter as having
taken advantage of the Institutes
IService on three successive nights in
October, 1912, would arrive in WASH
lington today or tomorrow. The de-
tense counsel said subpoena which
had originally been issued for the
mans appearance in court, had been
withdrawn to permit him to appear
voluntarily.
Reverses Testimony.
Miss Carter yesterday astonished
the courtroom when she reversed
previous testimony duplicating two
of the defendants with the Cleve-
land man. After recess, the wit
ness told visiting Justice Arthur
Lederle of Detroit, who is hearing
the case with jury Of nine men
and three women, that she wanted
to make statement.
Attorneys were called to the bench
where Miss Carter explained that
she had been in error when she said
the two girls she brought to the
Hotel Washington were Ann Henley
and Mildred Calls Stevens, also
known as Dorothy Calls. In open
court, the witness said she was "sor-
| ry for the mistake" The girls who
had been taken to the hotel by her,
she said, were not among the de-
| PENDANTS.
when did you realize you were
mistaken" Mr.. Fihelly asked.
Admits Incorrect Testimony.
when Mr.. Buckley was question:
l. ing me about the checks. He went
so fast. 1t came to me then. But I
l. just couldn't get it out. I couldn't
talk to Mr.. MARITIME (Vincent Mar
tino, Miss Carter's lawyer"
Asked by Mr.. Buckley whether the
witness gave the same erroneous
testimony before the grand jury
which returned the indictments in
the Hopkins case, she replied that
she did.
Then your testimony before the
grand jury was incorrect?" the de-
lfense lawyer asked
YES" the witness said.