The daily gazette., 1879-09-18

be without professional aid or counsel,
as the prosecutor has an inherent, an in
trinsic right to be represented. Mr.. Hig-
gins a SO argued that Justice of the
Peace, in criminal cases brought before
him could hear only what the Grand
jury hears, and Lad no right to admit
evidence for the defence.
Mr.. Lore responded that the State of
Delaware provides her own machinery
of Justice, and all Attorney General to
attend to her interests. The Attorney
GeneI al must not necessarily be trav-
elling pettifogger, for when he can not
be present al hearing he may employ
other pettifoggers to appear for him. He
argued that MI. Higgins did not come
clothed with authority of the Attorney
General, but as the employed counsel of
the complaihauts. Mr.. Lore continued
to argue at length against the justice or
law Of the procee' ing.
Mr.. Bradford, while not denying the
right of prosecutor to he represented,
thought that any citizen would have
light to come in and assist the Justice in
arriving AT decision.
Mr.. L"re deemed this presumptuous
intimaton that any citizen could come
in and assist the Justice when they
thought he had sense enough TO act for
himself.
Squire Cole said the discussion had
only been permitted through courtesy,
as, of course, he was anxious to learn
all he could from Counsel. But from
experience and precedent he would de-
eide that there could be no counsel for
the State in this case excepting the At
tornev-General or his authorized agent.
| The Justice also was of the opinion that
he had right to hear all tie evidence
obtained in each case brought before
| him, in order to determine tue just dis
position 20 make of it.
This announcement was greeted with
| applause, which the Justice sternly
cht cked, saying he did not wish any
manifest alton of approval or disapprov-
| al, and that he was callous as to what
view the public took of his action in
these cases.
Patrick Neary and James F. Daily,
then testified that they were standing
with Hickman when File came up, and
that Hickman excused himself, inside If
a minute, and went away, saying "l've
got to CO."
| Mr.. Lore then reviewed the case, ar
gung that no evidence of a neg ect or
refusal on the part of the constable to
perform his duty had been proved. The
| the case.
Constable John Brooks was then az
ragned on charge preferred by Charles
III. Howard, of neglecting and refusing
to arrest Elias johnson, for whom he
had a warrant.
Howard testified that on Saturday ev-
ening he was standing in front of Es-
! quire Coles Office, and heard Brooks
say he would like to get hold of Elias
Johnson.
+, Just then he saw johnson coming
| across Third street, down Market, anil
| he pointed him out to the Constable
| The latter went to the corner, looked af-
ter the man designated, and then re
turned, saying it was not Johnson, as it
| was too tall for him. Witness was posi-
tive this man was johnson, though he
did not know him very intimately.
Elias johnson, the party for whom
| the warrant was issued was called, but
| Constable PritchetI said he could not
find him. Brooks wanted to prove by
johnson himself that he did not go down
| Market street on Saturday night.
Constable Brooks made statement to
| the effect that he knew johnson and
| would have no trouble in recognizing
| mm, but that the man pointed out TO
him by Howard was not johnson.
"This is u farce" quoth Mr.. Higgins
| to Mr.. Bradford.
| The Squire took occasion to remark
that these cases should impress npon
officers the fact that they are objects of
public criticism and watchfulness. He
then declared that the charge had not
been sustained and dismissed the case.
Another charge against Mr.. Brooks
was preferred by Oscar Gouelt, TO the ef-
feet that he neglected and refused to ar
rest Samuel ID. Long, when pointed out
to him. Mr.. Gouert testified that Long
passed by the 'Squlre's office and he
pointed him out, when only a few feet
distant, to officer Brooks. The latter
started after him, out came back in a
few minutes and said he could not find
him.
Apdrew B. Jones testified that at this
time Brooks had warrant issued at his
instance, to serve on another man, amt
that case wass pres -ilg one and' there
| was danger the nan would leave the CITY
| Brooks served the warrant that evening.
Mr.. Brooks also made statement to
the effect that he followed after the men
pointed out by Gouert, and made Ii :
quiries for them up Shipley street, but
could not find them. He knew Long, as
he had seen him on Thursday atiercoon
and he had promised to come to the Of
fee at o'clock Saturday evening. 1t
afterwards appeared that Long did come
but went away before he was noticed.
The Squire di, missed this case also,
and another case against Constable
Hickman was postponed until this
morn nv ,onaccount OF the absence Ut the
| W tuesSeS.
ANOTHER FARcE-THE coMPLAINANTs
PROVE THE FALsITY OF THLIR
| CHARGE.
This morning, at 8 o'clock, the re-
manning case against Constable Hick-
man was disposed Of The charge was
brought by Anthony Higgins, ESD, and
was TO the effect that he bad neglected
or refused to arrest one William Miller,
an apprentice at the EUery Euen.ng Of
flee, tor whom he had State warrant,
for voting illegally.
Mr.. Higgings testified first, to the et-
feet that ON Tuesday he learned Miller
was at the Every EUening office, and
coming down to Esquire Coles office in
formed Hickman. The latter did not re-
fuse to go after Miller, but went up
Market street. James Darrah, who had
been arrested for illegal voting, was in
the Esqure's office at the time.
Win. Il. Croasdale, ed tor of Every
Euenlng, testified that he met Hickman
going up Market street, taking James
Darrah to the police station. He told
. Hickman that Miller was then in the
office, and Hickman said when lie took
Darrah to the hall he would come back
and get bim. Some ten minutes later
l 4