The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1875-09-29
THE CRIME INVESTIGATION
CLERK SPARES or the GENERAL
HESSIONS ON TIE STAND.

SESSIONS ON THE STAND.
FORCED Rail bonds In the Diurict Attorneys
Once Illegal Practiccr In the Police
Courts-Justice FInDmer's Testimony.
The Assembly Committee on Crime con-
tnucd their investigation yesterday. Mr.. ste
phen u. Ilrague testified that az al5 z. NJ. he was
standing on the rear platform Of a Twenty-third
street car. At Ffih avenue thief ATTEMPTED
to ste his watch and chain. He seized the
thief aud prevented him from getting the watch.
In the acuille that cnsued the thief slipped out
Of his coat and ran down Twenty-third street
toward Sixth avenue, Mr.. Brague following,
shouting "stop thief" Before ho reached the
avenue the thief arrested by Onicer Conk-
lin. Tn the Thirteth street police station Mr..
BraRuc entered a complaint against the thief Of
an attempt M larceny from the person. The
same complaint made In the Police Court
on the next day, and the thief, who then We
his name az james Anderson, was committed
by Jus lee wandell In default OF 5000 bail. A
day or two afterward Mr.. Iiraaue saw Ander-
sons photograph In the Roeuos' Gallery In tho
Police Central once, aud told that his alias
was Pretty jimmy" and that he was noted
pckpockct. Mr.. prague told the District At
torney what ne had learned In the Police Cen
| trail once. Anderson was indicted for grand
| larceny ON the 9th OF July. On the eth Of July
| In court In obdienco to a subpoena When the
| case was called, Anderson pleaded guilty to an
attempt to commit grand larceuv and was SEN
fenced To state PRISON for one year. MT. lirague
was not called as a witness. nor wac ne asked
whether he was willing to accept plea of guilty
| Officer Conklin, who arrested Anderson, testi-
| Ned beforc the Grand Jury, but was not sum-
moned to court.
| The counsel to the committee read section
Of the revised statutes That provides that per
| son convicted Of larceny IN the night may be
sentenced to ten years confinement.
bogus BAIL
| Isaac Taylor, Jr., Of 361 Tenth avenue, was no
| tiled by the District Attorney In March last 20
| produce before the Court one Schwartz, who
| had been indicted for burglary. Mr.. Taylor
| asked District Attorney Pheps what the notice
| meant, and was told tnat it meant what IL said.
| Mr. Tayl n thcreupon told Mr.. Phelps that he had
| never gwen bail for a thief, aud went away.
| HAVING, some time afterward, received another
| notice 10 produce Schwartz, MIR. Taylor again
| told Mr.. Phelps that nc had not given bail for
| schwartz. and made an AFFIDAVIT To that eject.
ON the lst " July he learned that bail had been
| forfeited, a judgment for $40 nled against him
IN the County clerks once ,nd IN ekes s,r On
| called ON MIR. Phelps and asked hun 10 satisfy
| the judgment. Mr.. Phelps denied bis request,
impaired MIR. Tayior's signature with that on
| the bal bond. lie was satisfied that Mr.. Taylor
| had not signed the bond, aud that the judgment
| should not De len On ms property; me paper
was flied with the County Citrk. but the lien
| was vet on his property, and would remain un-
III the judgment had been vacat"d bN the Court
| 81 Common Pleas. Recently Nj. l.yilr learned
| that INC reriSi,r ~ Tue iomn- f"ire 1lrt
| showed III he rad given bail Tor Joseph tros-
| 10y. who was arrested with schwartz, and not
| Tor ; NV - himself. II added that he gave
| bail for neither of the prisoners.
| MIR. SPARKS MAKES 4 SUGGESTION.
Mr.. John Sparks. Clerk Of the Court u GEN
| Cral Sessions. said that prisoner was seldunl
required TO renew his bal after he lad o'en
renewed ne the District Attorney would then
know whether the surctics were sufficient. A
bail bond was not a lien ON property until 10 had
been forfeited and a Judgment entered upon &C.
| n Cref0re man might give bail and transfer
his property ON the following day. Ma. spark
admitted tina; the papers IN many cases had
been taken from his Onicc by the District At
| tome, within the past three months. and no
receipt had been given FOR them. In late year
bail had been liked and reduced and pris lners
had been discharged on bail by the District
| Attorney without the consent Of the Court
although the law authorized no such method OF
| procedure. Orders endorsed on indictments
| were Intellectual. They should he entered in
| the minutes OF the court. Under the law, Il
was the Sheud's duty To take prisoners To- and
| from the Court OF General Sessions tut for
| some years that work had been done by the
officers Of that court. Those who were not
| special deputy shcrihs were n 4 responsible t.
ANYBODY for the escape Of a prisoner. iiefor,
| they are sentenced. prisoners were under the
Core IN aud their agents, the wardens Of the
| cay Itt@on. After sentence they were III th'
custody of the sheriff, hr. sparks admitted
there was no law compelling the tommis aiuner'
| Of Charities aId Correction or their agents, th'
wardets II prisons TO- deliver W Iusonor- ~
the District Attorney order. II ", 8, however
tnc practice to do so. lie Thought TINT IA,
| Commissioners could not be held re-pous ihl,
| for the - 'ape OF prisoner, but he believed thai
they would do wisely II they detailed men 1.
take prisoners to aud from the courts.
YXhNINArtONs ~ POLICE COURTS.
| Police Justice rhmmor said that IN the exim
inatiou IN police routt@ Of complaints for "A tel
ony. the complainant snd his witnesses weu
inst examined, then the prisoners witno-~e
ana lastly the prisoner himself. MI. Townsend
then said that that practice was contrary to law
and, to prove his assertion, read section of tbi
Revised Statutes which provides that ia exam
inatinu4 before committing nag1gtratpa
complainant and MS witnesses shall be exam
incd m the presence OF the prisoner; Tia th
prisoner shall thcn be examined In the pre-euc
OF nobody but MS counsel. " That method wa
undoubtedly prescribed" added Mr.. Townsend
a. To prr vent the prisoner from combining wit
and to enabl' the District Attorney TO submit
the testimony 10 the Jury IL toe Pms oner shout
| tell a different story VI his trial.
| Justice Flammer thought that most 81 III
| c.ses before the police courts we're attributable
| TO tue use ~ liquor. aud that crime micht b
decreased II the sal" u liquor was properly reg
| ulated. There would be fewer persons bctur
| these courts II the three thOusdhd halitu,
station hOusc dodgers were given their breakfas
| every rlinc, aud made to pny for II ana tnei
| lodging by cleaning the streets or doing ct ne
| work Tor the city. Many persons were befor
| the police courts once In every ten or tWcnt
| days. The number might be greatly reduce
| II the police cant ins would exert thcmSrIyc
to prove that they were Migrants and had bee
| often arrested TneV were really Migrants. an
| N IL could be proved that they were, they ngn
be put out uf the way FOR SIX months. The jas
| tice believed that the business Of the pole
| courts would be- facilitated II the police I
| tdinH or the Aldermen were authorized 10 a,
| on complaints OF intoxication.
~B