The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-03-22
THE CAPTAIN with HIS SHIRT OFF,
WHY WAS THE CURRY CASE IGNORED BY TIL
GRAND JURY?


As the famous Captain Williams is again before the
public with his shirt off," for assault cit
izen at Gilmores Garden it is worth while to call
attention to another offence about year old. for
which this gallant captain was held by Police
Justice Otterbours.
1t is told in the following legal papers with suff-
cient clearness:--
COMPLAINT OF LAURENCE A. CURRY
SUPREME COURT New York, CITY AND COUNTY OF
New YoRK-Ldarenee A. Curry Us. Alexander s.
City and County Of New York. ss.-The complaint Of
laurence A. Curry, plaintiff. against Alexander S.
Williams, defendant, shows
/. That at the city of New York. on the evening Of
the 7th day of January 1878, while this plaintiff
lawfully in the public building, premises or en-
closure commonly known and called 'Gilmore's
Garden, in said city, spectator to witness the
performance or entertainment that was then and
Police Athletic Club it called, said perform
entertainment having for its object the aid
ing and assisting of widows and orphans Of deceased
members Of the Metropolitan police force OF the city
New York. he had lawful right to be, having paid
the entrance admission fee required to admit Of
the public said evening to said Gilmores Garden,
the defendant without any cause or proyocaton
whatsoever violently beat and assaulted this plain
TIM struck him several severe and violent blows
with his cenched fists in the breast neck cheek and
shoulders and pulled and jerked him about, and
with great force and violence seized him by the
shoulder and body tearing and damaging his cloth
of large number OF public spectators, pull shove,
force drag and eject this plaintiff out OF and from
said Gilmore's Garden before said performance
entertainment had closed.
p That by reason of the premises and of the facts
and matters aforesaid this plaintiff has suffered
greatly in mind and body, his good name and charac-
ter been injured. his clothing damaged and he
has altogether been damaged in the sum of $50,0O0;
wherefore the plaintiff demands Judgment against
the defendant for the of $4,000. his damages
aforesaid. besides the costs and expenses or this
action. j. c. JULIUS LANGBEIN,
Attorney for plaintiff.
md nf,y inf Ve,yY nj lam
being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the
plaintiff in this that the foregoing complaint
tiers which are therein stated to be alleged on in
formation and belief and as to those matters he be-
Sworn to before me this 14th day Of January 1873
GEoRGE +. LANGBEIN, Notary Public
CAPTAIN WILLIAMS ANSWER.
To this complaint Captain Williams made answer
as follows:--
SUPREME CoURT-Lauence a. Curry Us. Alexander s..
WiLl.ams.-The defendant. Alexander s. Williams,
answering the complaint. admits that the plaintiff,
Laurence A. Curry at the city OF New York. on the
evening OF the 7th day of January 1873. in the
public building promises or enclosure commonly
the auspices of the Police Athletic Club. That as to
whether not the plaintiff was lawfully in said pub
or not the plaintiff paid the entrance or admission
fee required to admit Of the public
to said Garden the defendant denies any
knowledge or information thereof sufficient
to form belief. The defendant denies each and
every allegation in the said complaint not herenbe-
fore admitted denied. The defendant further
answering alleges that at the city and county Of New
York. the 9TH day OF January, 1873 the defendant
was for long time prior thereto. had been ever
since and has remained member of the police force
of the city of New York-to w.t. captain OF police
That at the city and county Of New York, on or
about the 7th day OF January, 1878, ut the public
building. premises or enclosure known us Gilmore's
Garden. at q certain entertainment there taking
place. the defendant was then and there present as
such member of the police force as aforesaid and
was in charge in command OF the police force then
and there therein placed for the preservation Of
the public peace and order That ut the time and
place last Aforesaid at said Garden and during the
performance entertainment then and there taking
place being given the plaintiff left his seat or the
place provided for spectators and the public. and,
with crowd of rough and disorderly persons,
entered the or place where the performers at
such entertainment were acting and upon being re-,
Quested to leave such arena or place the plaintiff
used loud and insulting language and was
guilty of loud, boisterous, rough and dsorderly
conduct, manner and language, which tended to
interrupt the said performance and lead to breach
Of the public peace. That the plaintiff then and
there refused to leave said arena place. and con-
tinued his loud, bosterous and disororly conduct,
manner and language; whcreupon the defendant. as
such member Of the police force aforesaid, he
had a perfect right and it his official and
bounden duty to do, gently placed his hand upon
the plaintiff and directed him to be removed from
the Garden. And that the foregoing constitutes the
alleged cause of action on which this suit is
brought CHARLES f. MACLEAN,
Defendants Attorney.
City aud County Of Neo York-Alexander s. Williams.
being duly sworn says that he is the defendant in
this action and that the foregoing answer is true to
his own knowledge. except as to the matters therein
stated to be alleged ON information and belief and
to those matters he believes It to be true
ALEXANDER s. WILLIAMS.
Sworn to before me this 18th day OF February,
1S7S-EDWARD w. CRIrrENDEN, Notary Public.
JUSTICE oT1ERBoURG's DECISION
When the case came before Justice Otterbourg for
consideration he delivered the following decision
The People, &C., on the complaint OF Laurence A.
Curry W. Alexander $. Williams and Philip Mohr-
JANUARY II. is7S-Decision by Marcus Ottcrbourg.
Police Justice-Atter careful perusal of the testi
mony for the people and the defendants. mud some
very grave questions submitted to my consideration
The complaint charges Captain Alexander s. Will
Jams and Oniccr Philip Mohr with as
sault and battery, without any justification.
was at the time and claims he had q right to be.
having paid the required admission fee Of hfty
cents; From the evidence aoes appear tnns an
while in the act of arresting the complainant and
giving him in charge TO Officer Mohr. And now
come some OF the grave questions have already re-
FYrs,-was nm arrest made?
.yecond-Was the assault justified?
Th.rd-Was 1t made for the purpose of making an
arrest and the force and treatment used by the
officers in making the arrest necessary when
sstance is shown on the part OF the complainant to
the arrest?
1t is a well established principle in law that no
manual touching Of the body is necessary to consi
tute an arrest. Nor ~ 1t necessary to show bodily
harm to make out Of assault and battery. It
is in evidence that Captain Williams acted on the
information OF Officer Grassick, charging Mr.. Curry
with offensive language. which led to the arrest.
The fact whether arrest was made or. II made 1t
necessary to make it in the interest OF public
order, or whether Captain Williams acted presi-
dent of q private association giving public per-
formance, whether Captain Williams was clothed
with the character of an umpire in citi-
zen's dress, with NO sign of his character
as police officer captain of the police.
could make the arrest in the manner 1t made.
according to the testimony ought to have been de-
cided by q court of Jurisdiction. II Mr. Curry was
dsordcrly that it became necessary to lay hands
on his person to eject him from where he pres
ent to view q public performance having paid an
entrance fec, then he ought to have been arrested
and taken to court the following morning. where q
complaint should have been made against him by an
officer or o citizen. 1t was for magistrate to
decide whether arrest and the manner
in which IL was made justified It
is the duty of Judicial officers to decide
controversies between individuals and accusations
made in the name OF the public against persons
charged with violation Of the law. police captain
is not judicial offices. due regard to the rights
of citizens shown by public officer is the best
to insure the respect of the people for those
who are charged with the management of public
.s,.;.<