The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-16
TRIAL OF CAPTAIN KILLILEA.
DID BE RECEIVE THE MONEY ?-cAN THE CON-
AussIoNERs DECIDE?

DID BE RECEIVE THE MONEY CAN THE CON-
AussIoNERs DECIDE?
The full Board OF Police Commissioners met in
the court room at the Central Department at two
O'Clock yesterday afternoon 10 try the case or
Captain Killilea OF the Eleventh precinct, charged
with violation OF the rules OF the department in
levying and receiving monthly stipends OF 500
each from Fritz Kasefang. the proprietor OF beer
garden In the Twenty-second ward known as
National Hail." The specification OF the charge
set forth that the sums OF money above mentioned
were paid TO Captain Khlilea on divers days in
the years 1870, 1871 and 1872 Counsellors Brooks
and Fellows appeared for the defendant and
Chief Clerk Hawley conducted the prosecution.
The accused occupied seat close 20 his counsel
and preserved stoical expression OF features
througnouE the trial, listening with apparent
equal Indifference TO the curt. logical and dam
aging presentation OF facts by the prosecution,
and the subtle legal disqusitons, aiming to obtain
his acquitta on the part OF bis attorneys The
court room was fairly filed by spectators, all OF
whom by their close attention evlnced most
lively interest in the proceedings
Chief Clerk Hawley opened che case by stating
that the prosecution had no evidence to uomit
other tnau the a a iavt oil Kasefang and The sworn
testimony OF ex-Sergeant Miller OF the Twenty.
second precinct, although 1t was bis intention to
call another witness who had been subpG naed,
would therefore rest Its case.
Counsellor Fellows then moved to dismiss the
case on the ground OF no sufficient proofs to sus-
tain the charges. he remlnded the Court that at
previous meeting OF the Board Commissioner
Dsbecker had emphatically and unequivocaily
denied he truth OF portion OF the sworn testi-
mony OF Sergeant Miller, relating to CONVERSE
ton that Miller alleged took place between himself
and Mr.. Dtsbecker The Board would be compelled
to disbelieve their associate member, DlsbecKer,
II they gave credence to the statement OF Miller,
and II they were satisfied that the latter was un-
truthful In that instance his iurtner and subse.
quent testimony fell to The ground. man who
nad deliberately and wilfully perjured himself on
one occasion was forever blasted by law IRON CIV
Ing stlmony IN court. Even the convicted
r6 BY
evidence In actions at law although crlmi-
nails convicted on any other charges were restored
by pardon to all their rights and privileges as
cltlZens. The Commissioners would bear IN mind
that this same Sergeant Miller mad preferred
accord TO HIM lMllleD a ialr trial on Charge OF
sojournng IN liquor saloon While on patrol DUTY,
and on which he was dismissed from the force.
Now it would not do Tor the board to answer
those charges by saying that the complainant was
not worthy OF belief II they ACCEPTED as credible
took the grouna that Miller had deliberately COM
mitted perjury IN swearing that kaselapg's money
passed through him to kiilea. There was no
evidence before the board, therefore, to show that
his client hat ever committed any wrong
Cnlet Clerk Hawley opposed the motion on the
ground that the alleged conflict between Commits
soner Disbecker's stateme ana the testimony OF
the witness was on an immatcrla and entirely
irrelevant point. There was practically nothing
In 1t tnat could in any way impeach The testimony
OF Sergeant Miller.
Mr.. BROOKS followed in lengthy argument to
show that even II the untruth told by Miller to
Mr.. Dsbecker, In his sworn examination by the
latter was irrelevant to the present Issue. the
fact that he had lied IN any particular was suhl-
Gent to break down ali his subsequent testimony.
m lVi0 ragn nd Vfnn fha Itv.f IF
the cOunsels statement with reference TO the dis
crepancles In Mler's testimony before the Com
missioner, claiming that there was no discrepancy
at all. Mi. Disbecker mad simply cnaraCl erzed as
incorrect a trivial and lnsgndcant allegation
made by the witness. and 1t had no possible rela.
ton to the evidence IN the present case.
Alter some little discussion among the Commits
soners President Matsell stated that the motion
was denied, ana the defence t0ok an exception.
Now. may 1t please the Board. said Counsellor
BrooKs, l move to dismiss the case Tor want Of
jurisdiction.
This was o startling motion, and many OF the
spectators turned aim. st pale at the audaclty OF
Of the Board TO try the case.
Mr.. Brooks wen. on to say that the alleged
show. the years 1870 1871 and 1872 prior to the
existence OF the Municipal Board Of Police. On
politan Police OF the city Of New York and created
In Its stead the present Board. Surely the Com
mlssloners couo not claim jurisdiction In offences
committed before the department at he head or
present case they Would be going. entirely beyond
new department. in every sense OF the word.
Mr.. Hawley read from the statutes to show that
the Legislature conferred upon the Municipal
Board OF Police all the duties, powers and obnga-
tons OF ts predecessor, the Board OF Metropolitan
Police. and consequently the present case was
within the Jurisdiction OF this Board.
Counsellor Fellows thoroughly warmed to his
aeep ne or
tended were applicable TO the case Of Captain
Klllilea. IL was an elementary principle or law
that statutory jurisdiction should never be I'M
Piled; 1t must be g. ecl1cay set lortn in the law
to try any offence occurring since the date OF their
creation, but they were estoppeu from eC post
tdCtO action, AS jurisdiction III the present case
would De II they exercised 1t.
Chief Clerk Hawley read the act creating the
present Board, and argued that the position taken
by the other side was unsound. There could te
no doubt that the present Board had as much
jurisdiction in matters happening during the exits
tenCe OF the Metropolitan Board as the successors
OF the present commissioners would have In cases
occurring now.
A little TIFF here disturbed the equanimity OF the
proceedings. Counsellor Fellows rose to reply,
marked, loud enough to be heard all over the
room 1--WE have heard enough Of tnls." Mr.. Fell
lows at once rufNed up, and CURLY responded
that he was not through yet, and tnat every men,
heard by counsel Mr.. VOorhIs retorted sharply,
but the matter subSlded without Iurther parley,
the counsellor proceeding witislts argument. At
It's conclusion Mr.. Hawiey said that ne had other
ready TO go to trlaI but Mr.. Brooks insisted that
the present case be first disposed oil. After con-
siderable discussion the Commissioners there
upon held consultation, and President Matsell
miss for want OF jurisdiction. ana would render
its decision IN the case at future time.
The trial OF the other charges Will take place
next Tuesday.