By Jule B. Warren
Raleigh, Feb. 11—The federal petit jury Friday afternoon found Dr. J.R. Lowery not guilty of the charge of violating the anti-narcotic laws with regard to the treatment of Ruth Clark, but reported to the judge that there was no hope of an agreement as to this defendant’s guilt in connection with his treatment of Glover Cleveland Holden, and a mistrial in that case was therefore ordered. Dr. Lowery was held for the next term of federal court under $200 bond. The jury was discharged after 12 hours deliberation on the verdict.
Judge Connor ordered a verdict of not guilty in the case where I.T. Winston of Youngsville, a clerk in a drug store of that place, was charged with selling morphine to Holden. This verdict was ordered after the Government had offered its evidence, and a part of the evidence had been offered for the defense. Judge Connor did not think the testimony justified carrying the case to the jury, and therefore ordered the verdict of not guilty.
At the afternoon session of the court, the trial of Dr. J. Manning, mayor of the city of Durham, charged under four counts with having violated the Harrison anti-narcotic laws, was started. The attorneys for the Government and the defense agreed to consolidate the four cases against Dr. Manning and try them all together. Dr. Manning is represented by Fuller and Reade of Durham, Ex-Judge Steven G. Bragaw of Washington, N.C., J. Crawford Biggs of Raleigh, and his brother, Attorney General James S. Manning, who is sitting with the attorneys for the defense. District Attorney Irvin B. Tucker and Assistant District Attorney Willis G. Briggs are representing the Government in this trial.
It took an hour to select the jury for the Manning trial. Both the government and the defense used up five of their 10 challenges without cause before the jury was finally selected. The Government has summoned a large number of witnesses in the case, including a number of Durham people whom it is alleged Dr. Manning gave drugs in violation of the Harrison law. A hundred or more citizens have come to Raleigh to watch the trial of the city’s chief executive. Included n the list are a large number of the leading citizens of the city, many physicians and sores of others who are ready to testify to the good character of the Durham physician. Representatives of the board of health of Durham are here to testify as to the standing of Dr. Manning in the profession, and also to tell about the narcotic clinic which he undertook with the consent of the board of health and the medical society of his and adjoining counties.
The Government is using about the same methods in tis case that were followed in the Lowery case Its agents have worked up the case and have found some of the people whom Dr. Manning treated.
Mistrial a Surprise
The mistrial in the Lowery case came as a distinct surprise to the attorneys for the Raleigh doctor, who had expected an acquittal in 15 minutes after the case went to the jury. It was likewise surprising to some of those who heard the case. It has been known all day that the bone of contention of the jury in this case was the Holden transaction the letter offered by the Government as evidence of the sale of morphine to Holden, it seems, was the thing which hung the jury for 12 hours and finally caused the mistrial. This letter was written by Dr. Lowery to Holden, saying that under separate cover a bottle of medicine was $50, whereas Holden had sent a check for but $25. Dr. Lowery asked that the balance due be sent.
Dr. Lowery, on the stand, explained this letter. He said the charges were for professional services, and the medicine mentioned was not a drug at all, but was the medicine for the treatment of a venereal disease. The doctor said he called it morphine because he did not want Holden’s family to find out that he had the disease for which the medicine was intended as a treatment. The Government made a great deal of this letter, which was exhibited to the jury. The district attorney played this part of the evidence up to his argument and called attention to what he termed the very slim defense offered by Lowery in explaining the nature of the letter.
From The Charlotte News, Saturday evening, February 11, 1922
No comments:
Post a Comment