The Portland daily press., 1884-05-01
ANDREWS REMOVED.
ProtracJed Hearing by the Board
of Aldermen.
They Advise and Consent to His Re
mOVal from Office.
SOME REMARKS BY TIE MAYOR,

order at twenty minutes of 8 O'Clock. The hearing
on the charges against Marshal Andrews was then
continued. Mr.. Dyer, recorder Of the Municipal
Court, was the first witness called by Mr.. Looney
and he produced the records Of the court to show
the discontinuance of the complaint against James
E. Cady in October, 1888. The recorder also pro-
duced compilation of the search and seizures
made by the police force. On cross-examination
the recorder stated that he was not prepared to
give the number of search and seizures made by the
sherifs during the same period.
Mr.. Looney objected to going into the question of
a comparison between the number Of seizures made
by the police force and the liquor deputies and
stated that the liquor sherifs were not on trial
here. After considerable discussion Of the subject
between counsel the question was put to the Board
and on motion of Mr.. Noyes it was voted to admit
the question. Several questions were then put by
Mr.. Putnam relative to the statistics of the court
but failed to elicit very definite information owing
to the recorder not having compilation at hand.
John Feeney was then called and sworn. He tes-
titled that last June the officers made search of
his place on a Saturday night and the next Monday
he vent up 70 see the Marshal about the matter;
that in the course of his interview Marshal An
drews told him that he mustn't sell after ten
o'clock or on Sunday; that if he didn't he (the
On cross-examination of this witness by Judge
Goddard, he testified that he didn't threaten the
Marshal in the presence of Judge Goddard on the
occasion of his (Feeneys) arrest fortnight ago
the time when Feeney was arrested for illegal
transportation of liquors and for an assault that
he had told the story relative to the Msrshas order
to him about shutting up before ten O'Clock previous
to this arrest.
ID. A..
report about the streets election night that Marshal
Andrews had got to go.
The witness denied that he did.
Patrick Flaherty, brother-in-law of Feeney, testi
fed that he went up to the Marshal's office with
Feeney; that the Marshal notified him that he was
to shut up the shop atogetherto shut up for good.
Mr.. Looney asked the witness if he hadn't stated
story directly opposite this afternoon in the
presence of Mr.. Sawyer, the constable.
Mr.. Putnam objected to the question.
Mr.. Looney insisted on the question as he was
prepared to show that the witness had been inter.
viewed this very day; that he had good to be-
lieve that the witness had been interviewed by
Marshal Andrews and his testimony perverted.
During the examination of Flaherty the crowd in
attendance broke into repeated applause in spite
the efforts of the presiding officer to maintain or
was not of the kind expected by the City Solicitor
Mr.. Flaherty upon further questioning admitted
that he had an interview with the Marshal yester-
day "wednesday, after he had been summoned;
that he went to see Marshal Andrews to find out
what his summons was for; he had no talk about
what his testimony was to be.
George f. Gould, judge Of the Municipal Court
was next called. Mr.. Looney handed him q COM
81, I I'D
stated that the 81" was not in the name when the
complaint and warrant were issued. The Judge al
so testified that it was common practice for war
rants not to be brought to trial when the evidence
didn't seem strong enough in the judgment Of the
officer to justify trial.
The Judge detailed the circumstances attending
the issue Of the oNeil warrant; that he first mem
Thursday morning following the morn
ing when court was held that he threw out
the complaint and warrant to the Marshal and said
to him, Marshal that complaint and warrant have
been altered; that it was serious matter and
mustn't happen again.
alter the papers but said he thought wouldn't
care. ! notified Mr.. Hale the respondents counsel
of the facts.
On redirect Judge Gould stated that In the NUM-.
cipal Court the Marshal and Deputies were regard
ed as substantially prosecuting officers and he had
no. doubt the Cady complaint was probably discon
tinued on the Marshal's recommendation.
Walter O. Sweetsir of Cape Elizabeth testified he
was in Portland some three weeks ago and saw
John W. Sullivan in team with barrels in it. Wit
ness was coming down Maple street, and the team
was going up. In few minutes saw buggy be-
hind 10, and gentleman in the buggy wear ing a
tall hat, with star on it,; followed the team across
house when they stopped; they seemed to talk
then. was in the main road. Didn't see Sullivan
pass the Marshal anything. They then drove back
to the city.
Cross examination of this witness was waived by
the defense.
John W. Sullivan took the stand and testified that
fha IF Mar
the Cape took place as related by the witness
(Sweetsir) that he had in two barrels Of ale-that
the Marshal had talk with him about the talk he
(Snllivan) had been making about having the Mar
shall kicked out and that he had heard much of it.
Sullivan was asked by Mr.. Looney to explain how
he came to be on such terms of familiarity with
Mr.. Andrews that he dared to bride him.
The witness testified that when Mr.. Andrews was
deputy sheriff under Mr.. Sawyer he was on familiar
relations with MN and used 70 pay him money, and
influenced others to pay-naming John Howley Ed.
Coleman and others.
On cross-examination the witness said that he
supposed there might be some feeling on his part
the aldermen's Office from Ward 4 year ago last
spring when Mr.. Andrews opposed him.
attention to the Special law on which these charass
were based, claiming that the witnesses for the
defence would show that the Marshal had dsne
nothing but what previous mayors have ordered
and what other marshals in latter years have es,
tablshed as precedent. Counsel for defence oc-
cupied one hour in presenting the case to the
Board.
Witnesses for defence called and sworn
j. F. A. Norton called. Is police officer of Port
land. He testified in regard to the case of john
Feeney for illegal transportation of liquor. In
company with Marshal Andrews on Saturday,
April 18th, about p. m, while riding apprehend-
ed John Feeney in the Eastern Railroad freight
side Of Portland bridge that In attempting to get in
the team he (Feeney) struck him with the heavy
butt OF whip, which with ess produced.
On cross-examination the witness testified that he
was appointed by ex-MayOr DeerinR,
Henry X. Leach, clerk In the Recorders Office Of
the Municipal Court, was called. He was present
on the 3lst day of December last at the office; saw
James E. Cady pay to Recorder Dyer the fine OF
the case Of Patrick Hanrahan; he knew Of MOI
more than two cases which had been discontinued
after appeal. Cady was not alone; the fine wa.
paid atsshis desk.
On cross-examination by City Solicitor Looney h,
said that Marshal Andrews was present at THU
Mr.. Townshend, associate counsel for defence, wa,
called, and ties flied to records relating to Sullivan
ana Cady as appearing on the books OF the Munich
cases served by the officers under the Marshal ano
ten cases held and convicted upon which appeals
were taken or fines paid; also found seven cases
upon these parties served by other officers two d
whom were convicted Of these seven cases the
complaints were drawn by the following parties
four by Neal Dow, two by Job Sanford, and one by
George l.. Kimball.
CITY MARsHAL's TESTIMONY.
Marehal Andrews was then called and examined
by Mr.. Putnam. He testified as follows:
Q.-Marshal, have you accepted any brides from
Mr.. Sullivan, Mr.. Cady, or any other man?
Al have not.
Q.-Haye there been any money transactions be
tween you and Mr.. Cady or Mr., Sullivan whateve
since you were marshal, or while you were deput,
sheriff..
Ayes sir, in regard to liquor vessels; nothing
further
Q.-what do you mean by liquor vessels?
A.-An vessels that are seized containing liquo
are forfeited to the town where they seized anC
after the liquor is spilled the vessels sold anC
the proceeds turned over to the city or town. AnC
L may have had money transactions with them il
that respect. know have sold them liquor yes
sells.
Q.-Money that is regularly accounted for undel
the statute; a regular transaction?
Ayes, sir.
Q.-Aside from that, have you had any money
transactions with them, or anything by which yoI
have received anything of value from them in an,
way?
Al have not.
OILS there anything that haa ever occurred
either while you were marshal or deputy sheriff
out Of which this charge against you of briber.
could be made up?
A.-Nothing that 1 know Of.
Own you state the transaction about th.
barrel Of beer that had been captured by Officer
Pride?
IL was informed one evening, by officer Pride
that four days befvre that he and officer Frank
had found Jack Sullivan, rolling a barrel of beer
down in Center street just Spring street. They
know whom they should hold. They did not hold
anybody.
Q.-1hey spoke of seeing another man.
A.-They spoke of seeing another man win the
barrel of beer in the wagon, which went up in that
direction, but that they had found the wagon with