Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-09-05
THE CASE WILL BE HEARD.
Commissioners Stones Decision In the
Block Case.


Commissioners Stones Decision In the
Block Case.
m SANS TIE COMPLAINT BEFORE HIM rs NOT THE
sAMx A. THAT BEFORE THE POLICE COURT AND
COMMISSIONER yoHNsoS-HE WILL EXAMINE
INTO TEE MERITS OF THE NATTER
United States Commissioner Warren @.
Stone today announced in the case of Detective
sigimund J. Block on the complaint of +.
Lowenstein that he had decided to 20 on with
the hearing, overrulinQ tbs points raised by
Mr.. h z. Davis, who appeared for Block. The
session today was held in the Criminal Court
room. The case grows out Of the arrest of
young Brainard or Monroe on the charge of
the larceny Of the seaton silverware and the
larceny Of articles from Alice V. Parker and
the subsequent arrest, trial and conviction OF
Ferdinand Lowenstein for receiving the stolen
goods. At the session Monday Mr.. Davis
made the point that the case was the same that
had been previously acted upon or at least the
facts involved we're the same.
THE ooNMIssIoNER's OPINION.
Commissioner Stone this morning read his
opinion as follows:
"The hearing thus far in the pending exami-
nation has been directed exclusively to the dis
erection the commissioner should exercise in
permitting these proceedings to continue, in
view Of other steps heretofore taken before
other tribunals, in matters generic to the pres
emit inquiry. In this connection counsel have
brought to my attention the record of two
other cases charging the defendant with COM
promising felony growing out of charges Of
larceny against one Frank Monroe alias Frank
Brainard- Both cases, like the one before me,
appear to have been instituted upon the sworn
complaint Of one Ferdinand Lowenstein. The
first was heard and determined on its merits
before his honor, Judge Miller Of the Police
Court OF this District. The other by Commits
sioner johnson, who dismissed the complaint
on plea to the jurisdiction. In determining
the present question am charged with q COM
parative examination of the records to ascer-
tain whether the complaints referred to are
identical with the present one.
REVIEW OF THE OLD COMPLAINT.
"By reference to the complaint fled In the
Police Court and on which the hearing was had
there, it will soon be seen that the only matter
before that court was in relation to the conduct
of the defendant in failing to prosecute Frank
Brainard alias Frank Monroe for the larceny
OF silver vase and tea pot, the property Of
Malcolm Seaton. The warrant followed neces-
sarily the complaint, and in neither paper do I
ind the slightest reference to the larceny of
the property of Alice Parker / find from the
stenographic report of the decision Of Judge
Miller that the count was confined to the escape
OF Frank Brainard alias Monroe as regards the
Malcolm Seaton property.
The complaint before Commissioner John
son, as In the present case, did relate to the
larceny Of the property Of Alice Parker, but it
dinered from the present information as will
be seen by reference to the complaint, in that
it failed to charge the offense committed by
Block as felony, or that the crime of Frank
Brainard or Monroe was grand larceny. As
presented in the complaint before Commits
sioner johnson it was only petit larceny and
was vague and indefinite. This defect appears
to have been corrected in the present COM
plant, making the charge against Block as it
should have been made in the first instance
the compromising Of felony based on grand
larceny OF the property of Alice Parker taken
by Frank Bralnard alias Munroe. The charge
thus becomes one In law and fact essentially
distinct from the charge as il existed before
Commissioner johnson. 1t is true that the
warrant set forth that the ofense was felony,
but this was without any support in the infor-
nation, and the warrant in this respect, it ap-
pears to me, was void.
But all this, while correct and WORTHY of no.
tice, is immaterial. II the objection has any
force at all in law it must be on the ground
that the defendant Block has once been in
jeopardy and cannot, therefore. be again ar
rested for the same matter. But all the au-
as in jeopardy until an indictment is found by
jury impanelled and sworn. The complaint
before Commissioner johnson in no respect
placed the defendant in jeopardy and cannot
be set up as reason why the present proceed
ings should be dismissed. Legally the obiec-
Law, vol 1, 9th ed, secs. l014 and 1923.
NOT THE SAME COMPLAINT.
"From a review Of the record furnished of
the proceedings before Commissioner johnson
and the citations it is clear that the action of
Commissioner johnson in dismissing the pro-
ceedings before him-essentially different from
those before me-that his action can in no re-
spect affect, as a matter either of fact or law,
the duty that attaches to the commissioner at
the present hearing; and more especially as
Commissioner johnson did not consider the
merits of the case. but declined to proceed on
the ground of a want of jurisdiction evidenced
on the face of the papers before him. The an
slogy goes further, as in civil cases a former
adjudication to prevent new suit must be had
on the merits"
THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
After quoting from Gath U. s., 525, the COM
missioner continued: 1T is not pretended that
there was at the johnson hearing any examine
ton Of the merits Of the charges against Mr..
Block. The action before the Police Court had
reference and was exclusively based upon the
larceny of the Seaton silver alluded to. The
Parker case seemingly was developed as the
outgrowth Of that, and was the basis Of CON-
missioner Johnson's examination. /, The allega-
tions before him did not set out the crime of
compromising felony, though such was SEEM
ingly intended. That charge does specially
appear in the complaint now under considera-
ton. I am bound, under the law, to inquire
into the probable truthfulness of this COM
plant, and shall 90 SO unless there appear upon
further argument q legal bar to my doing so.
The case will proceed"
THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
Mr.. Davis raised the question Of jurisdiction:
first, because the Supreme Court of the United
States has no authority to appoint commission
ers, and, second, because the case is one which
should be heard in the Police Court He ar
gued these points at length.
ADJOURNED TILL TUESDAY.
Mr.. Cook followed Mr.. Davis, claiming that
the commissioner should proceed and hear the
testimony.
Mr.. Davis made the closing argument, and
about 80 o'clock the commissioner adjourned
the hearing to Tuesday next, when he viii an
nounce his decision.
Transfers Of Real Estate.
Deeds in fee have been fled as follows:
8. Norment ct. al to W. Mayse ct al, pts. I6
and IL, 50. $50; e2,030. z. Fitzgerald to r.