Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-10-23
Proceedings i'm the Criminal Court To-
dav.

the trial of eX-Detective John W. CoomeS on in
dictments for receiving stolen property, In the
shape of 600 keys for misconduct In Office and for
violating section $50, r. s., District Of Columbia,
was continued after our report closed. District At
torney Corkhill, Assistant District Attorney Tag
gart and Special District Attorney Wells appeared
for the government, and Messrs. 4. H. Jackson and
d. w. Classic for the defense. After argument,
Judge Wylie declined to permit George McCauley
to testify unless it could be shown that he had been
pard0ned for the ofenses for which he had served
terms in the penitentiary. The defense pro-
duced the record, showing that McCauley had
served several terms.
This morning the court said that he was inclined
10 think that he was wrong in his ruling yesterday
as to the witness, McCauley. What is known as the
testamentary act OF 1T9S which had limitation to
three years, had always been treated as the law
here. He was not disposed to place himself in OPP
position to the rulings heretofore made. He was
reluctant in the matter, but would decide that
M'CAULEY IS A COMPETENT WITNESS.
Mr. Classic said that they were taken by surprise,
and If they had time they could show where the
act OF 1873 had been otherwise construed.
The court said that the act of 1;9S went into force
June ISL OF That year, and expired June 1St 1901;
but the acts OF Maryland went into effect February
9th, this act With them.
DANIEL LONG TESTIFIED
That McCauley told him to see Coomes at police
headquarters and tell him that he {McCauley)
wanted to see him (Coomes), and witness did so.
Mr.. Taggart said that they had sent to the Jail
Tor McCauey as soon as they learned that the court
MOuiG aGnit his testimony, and with him they
The court asked what they expected to prove by
him.
WHAT IT is EXPECTED TO PROVE BY M'CAULEY.
MI Taggart said that they expected to show
that Coomes met McCauley, who told him Of the
robbery, and COomes said that he would like to get
the property back; that it would be worth some
thing to him to turn it up. McCauley asked how
much, and was told $40. Afterwards the property
o1r1a trrr- I,an
tei and, net finding COOmeS. took it to Missouri
avenue and AZ street, and COumeS being sent for
snhsagneng snfSn tGng ne came took the property and
lhcater COm1que and paid him s..
Some time was then spent in awaiting Nc
CauleyS arrival.
MCAULEY TESTIFIEs.
1t was Has O'Clock when McCauley arrived. The
defense entered an objection to his testimony, and
IL was Overruled. McCauley testified that he lad
Known Coomes for about II years; knew Massey and
Leary and Rittershofer by sight. In August, 1881,
had conversation with Coomes, who asked wit
ness about the robbery OF the keys. Witness asked
nun what he would give and said he wanted 80.
witness then went to Emanuel JOhnSon'S house
ana got the keys from the cellar. There were about
peck, and he took them to headquarters, and
CoOnleS not being there, took them to Maryland
avenue and AZ street, and sent for Coomes, who
came down, and they were taken to Headquarters,
Coones gave him IS afterward near the Comique.
z. DO you know who took them?
A. Yes. Sir. took them; broke the door: went
III, took them and put them in a bag.
Mt. Jackson-SO far as the defense is concerned
this witness has our full permission to return to his
fayor1te place of residence-the common jail
The government announced their side of the case
as closed. and the defense stating that they had
witnesses only as to character, the case was re-
garded as closed.
The court suggested that they submit their prayers
De1ore gong to argument.
MAJOR THOs P. MORGAN AS A WITNESS.
MI. Taggart was about to commence his argument
when Mr.. jackson suggested that Major. Thos p
Morgan, formerly chief of police and Commissioner,
was present
Major Morgan was called. and testified that Mr
COOmeS had been an officer Under him.
lie was asked what was the custom as to defray-
ing expenses, but the question was ruled ont. The
court. however, said they might ask ii the custom
was 10 allow the detective TO accept expenses.
me question was asked, and Major Morgan said
Mr.. Taggart then proceeded with his argument
Tor the government.
AFTER RECESS.
Mr.. jackson arose and said: AFTER due consider
alton and willing to abide by the judgment Of the
court and jury, being satisfied with their integrity
we have concluded to submit the case to the jury
without argument"
The Court said he was Sorry that he would not
hear speech from the counsel.
Mr.. Wells remarked that he was glad to be
relieved OF the necessity of addressing the jury
Inc counsel for the government having spent
nearly twenty minutes in preparing their prayers,
Nr. Wells said they would be through In a few
The Court.-'sThey cannot he very sharp"
The government and defendant each submitted
series OF prayers.
CHARGE OF THE JUDGE
The court said that John w. Coonles had been on
the detective force for years. that it was place
OF trust, which was generally filled by men of
character: The presumption is that defendant
Is innocent of any violation OF law, and
S n to man m as 6a 6eha with wit na an
senseleSs passionate clamOr. II he is guilty
let him be convicted and II not acquit him, not
grow out of the same transaction. He is charged
with receiving stolen goods. extorting money, and
violating his duty by ne7ggecting 7g1, to report his
charges and said that man who received stolen |
goods for the purpose OF profit or eXtOrtng money
in this case particle OF evidence that Coomes |
he he ref referred red, to the evidence. relating
In which statement was made as to expenses but |
t, there was n no bargain nor promise made subse,
thief and was promised SO If he would produce |
them McCauley then returned the things If in |
Ing In the interest of RittersOfer then it was mpOs
sible to convict him under the first Indictment.
His opinion was that Coomes was then acting for |
The charge that he received stolen |
goods is absurd. Next the charge Of extorting |
money was considered, and the Court said IL an |
officer refused to perform his duties till paid he was
guilty. There was no evidence that COOmes' /
course was SUCH He asked RitterShOfer for |
s15, and when he refused Coomes went Off promis-
Ing to do the best he could. and he took no money
After the property was recovered RittershOfer VOL
unfairly handed him $40. Money paid that way is
not extorted. The payment was voluntary, and he |
might say 1t was proper act.
The next indlctment violating duty as an officer,
was taken up, and the court said the general rule
IS that an officer who violates his duty IS indictable
Sections 35 35S, 359 and $780, in reference to police
men receiving rewards, were read, and the court |
said 1t was made the duty OF defendant
IN receiving any reward or present for the perform
ance OF his duty to make report to his superior of
hat fact This was the only Indictment under
which there is ground for conviction. He received
10, paid s. to McCauley, but had not reported
t. The law itself provides the penalty:
1T shall be cause OF removal"
It was his duty to make the report, but he did not
10 it and he had been removed from of1ice-that
vas all the punishment the.law provided; that's
.he end OF this case, gentlemen.
Verdict Of Not Guilty.
At 245 the jury, without leaving the box returned
verdict OF "nOt guilty." There was some ap-
,lause, which was promptly checked The court
and Mr.. Coomes received quite an ova-
ion outside.
THE GERMAN-AMKRICAN BANK BUILDING LrTTaA-
Mr.. e. 81. Rollins, by Mr.. H. H. |
Wells, filed a bill In equity against Zenas c. Rob
)inS The bill states that in october, 1879, Rob
pins was the owner OF the property at the corner
If 9TH and streets, known as the ssFederal build
ng," some in fee and some by lease, with right to
purchase; that to obtain title to all Robbins en-