Evening star., 1949-05-11
Gambling
Continued From First Page.)

pany" with Acalotti before he
started dating Miss Ensor and was
motivated by spite and revenge. ,
That Mrs. Andrews never told
Mr.. Rice and Mr.. Werlich that
Acalotti was using her telephone
for gambling and that he had put
some of his possessions In her
apartment for safekeeping after
his apartment had been broken
into twice.
Judge Holtzoff conceded that
Mrs. Franklin's affidavit should
be accepted with caution as paid
informer. but he pointed out that
her statements were corroborated
I by two law enforcement officers.
He said he accepted statements
of the two law enforcement OH
GERS as against AIRS. Andrews
statement.
Pattern for Others.
The judge said he found 1t un-
usual for a person to store his
possessions in someone else's home
when he had a home Of his own,
particularly when there was some
evidence to- indicate these pos.
sessions were stritableI for gam
bling activities even If there was
no proof they were actually used
| for gambling.
The court added that 1t was
somewhat improbable" that Mrs.
Andrews would not know about
Acalotti's business activities If she
were, friendly enough with him for
him to select her home to store
his possessions.
After handing down his ruling,
Judge HoltzoH observed that there
were great many other cases of
this kind pending against the
telephone company and that this
case could be used as a pattern
for disposing of the other cases.
Facts to Be Studied Separately.
When Charles e. Ford, attorney
for Mrs. Andrews, Immediately
raised q question about deciding
all the cases on the basis Of one
case, Judge Holtzoff quickly ex-
planned that the facts in each case
will be determined separately. He
said he was referring only to
procedure.
Under this procedure, the tele-
phone company will file afadavits
which presumably will contain the
evidence provided by the Govern
ment to support removing the
telephones. The telephone sub
scribers suing to save their tele-
phones will then have two days in
which to reply and on the third
day the cases will be argued.
One Of the affidavits In today's
case has brought repercussions In
the District Building.
Mrs. Franklin swore that she
had gone over the papers found
| In Mrs. Andrews apartment. :,
Among the names and. numbers
she said she found was District
telephone she listed as an exten-
sion of District Tax Collector Guy
w. Pearson, and another for the
home of Mrs. Lou M. Quimby,
1875 Tenth street NV.
Clerk in Tax Oftice.
Mr.. Pearson said today that
Ihes wanted to ask MFR. Fay for
more information on the use Of
his telephone extension. He said
mrs. Quimby had been q clerk
lin the District Building for more
than 40 years and did have ac-
cess to the phone about q year
ago. She since has been moved
into another part of his office.
/ MIR. Pearson said he knew moth
ling about numbers bets made
j from his telephone.
In Mrs. Franklin's affidavit, she
swore that she called Alcott on
March 4 at Mrs. Andrews tele-
phone number. Mrs. Franklin
said:
It'll Alcott was extremely ex-
cited and asked me what I wanted
and where had gotten that phone
number. He said he was working
, at that phone now and not work
/ ing at his phone because had
told the prosecutor about him