Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-10-22
TEfE EX.DEEECTlyES' CASES.
Proceedings in the Criminal Court.

FLISDER AND M'ELfREsH PLEAD NOT GUILTY.
In the Criminal Court Judge Wylie) this morning
there was large attendance of people, in anticipa
ton OF the trial of some Of the pending against
ex-detectiyes- After the arratgnmentS noted else
where. the indictment against c. E. Finder and
George W. McElfresh. charging them with receiv-
ing stolen property, "a gold watch worth 500.
stolen from Joseph Bauman November 2Gth, 1882
was read. Mr.. Williams stated that the case was
placed On the assignment late on Saturday, and he
was not prepared TO go on The court. ascertaining
that the defendants were present, said that they
could @ be arraigned. which was done, and plea OF
not guilty was entered
The Cases Against John w. Coomes.
The three indictments on the assignment against
John CoomeS were called up, and he was arraigned
and pleaded not guilty. These indictments are as
follows: No. 1852, for receiving stolen property
1900 door keys valued at $3.50, and knives and
pincers, worth s425-from Charles RitterShofer
August s, 1881; No. 14,9 misconduct in Office grow
ing out OF the same transaction; and No. il 7SO
violating section $751; R. s. d. c., growing out Of the
same transaction.
The government was represented by the district
attorney and assistant, Mr.. Taggart, and Mr.. Wells
special attorney, and MI. A Ii. jackson for the
asked to withdraw those In IA ,67a and 14,9, and in
terpOse
A NOTION TO QuAsH,
on the ground that the indictments did not allege
that the statute and rules governing the police
had been violated.
Mr.. Taggart proceeded to argue that misbehavior
in Office was an offense.
The court said that the statute prescribed no
ton, but had imposed no penalty, and he asked if
an indictment could be sustained on such basis.
Mr.: Taggart thought it could be sustained, for it
was the duty OF The detective to turn over the
amount received-$10-tO the major of police, with
full and explicit report the subject and by not
dong SO ne became guilty of misconduct in office;
d. haSa a1 on fho
single point that there was no penalty in the
Mr.. D. W. Classic. for Mr.. Coomes, made the
point that he had been already punished by dis
missal from the force, and to try him now on this
charge was trying him a second time.
Mr.. Wells, for the government, said that the in
dlctment for misconduct in office i'm effect charged
eAtortion, an ofense punishable by common law.
The Two Indictments for misconduct and violating
the statute were read.
The court said those two should be consolidated.
THE MOTION TO oUAsH ovERRULED.
The court said that the question he understood to
be raised was that, although the duties prescribed
by the police board were in pursuance of law, yet
because there was no penalty attached there was
no offense. 1t could not be denied that the regula-
tions were prescribed under the statute. and they
therefore had the force OF law. The indictment,
then, charges that defendant, police officer, no
lated these regulations. The court read authori-
ties, and overrued the motion TO quasil, and an
exception was noted.
The court said that all three of the indictments
could be consolidated.
THE JURY.
A jury was called. as follows: Thomas SOmerville
Robert E. Frey, Walter H. Evans, John II. Wise.
John L. Vogt, Andrew Archer, W. B. T. Davis, Con-
rad Becker George F. Pyles, B.W. Page,V. j. Becker
and G. ". Banagan.
Mr.. Somervllle said that he had been member of
The citizens committee. Both sides were satisfied
with Mr.. SOmerviIle, but he stated that he did not
think that he was competent. and he was excused,
Conrad Becker was also excused.
Columbus J. Eslin and w. p. Cannon were chilled.
HpfpncA 50 no Ninrxr xrxx-aC- Hfny,rA
The government challenged Mr. Wise, and David
Nachman was excused, having an opinion. Henry
Bailey was called, but challenged by defense. W.
b: Scott was excused, as also w. D. Cruit, f. F.
simpson and Clarence BealL w. P. Cannon was
CHALLENGED by the government. Joseph Shorter had
an opinion. John GOldin was accepted
The jury. as follows, were sworn: Messrs. Frey,
Evans, Nogt, Eslin, Archer, Davis, Pyles Page, v.
j. Becker, Banagan, Beall and GOldn
Mr. Taggart opened the case to the Jury at 1915
O'Clock, describing the offense, and stating what
they expected @ to prove.
Mr. jackson followed for the defendant, closing
about O'Clock, when recess was taken.
THE TESTIMONY.
On the court re-asSemblng at 4 O'clock, the gov
erement called Charles Rittershofer who testified
that he is lockslnith, and had a shop on street.
near 14th; that on August Sd, 1881, he lost 1900
door keys, pincerS wise and four knives. Witness
went to police headquarters and reported the loss,
and he met Mr.. COOmes, who said he had heard
something about it, and COomes afterwards come
pay for the return OF the keys. Witness told
COomes that the government paid him S125 month.
COOmes did not show any disposition to do anything
unless he was paid. Witness gave him SIS, but
CoomeS did not ask him. The next Sunday he was
told by Officer West that his things there and
the next day he went to headquarters and saw his
Keys. Witness waited for CoOmeS. and told him
that ne could not give him s15 for it was hard TO
get. He then gave him $40. Coomes said to him.
when he came to the shop, that when banks were
robbed they put up $1,000 for the detectives and
witness replied that he was not a broker, aud did
not make his money so easy. There were no per-
sons present when he paid COOrneS
Continued in the Second Elitionl