Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-08-29
EXTORTION CHARGED.
A Suit Brought Against Alderman
Porter by a Colored Barber.
BOTH SIDES STATE THEIR CASE.
Some Novel Legal Points Claimed to be
Involved in the Suits.
A MYSTERIOUS DOZEN OF WITNESSES.


course of the usual routine report of the pro-
ceedings of the day at the clerks Office OF
the Court of Quarter Sessions:
B. F. Stewart. yesterday. entered suit against
Alderman w. H. Porter to recover s., 300, the
penalties for alleged extortion by the Alder.
man. Stewart claims that on May 25 he and a
Alderman Porter by Laura Meyers with
adultery. They were arrested and taken be.
fore the Alderman, who compelled them to pay
SIG 20 costs, and then discharged them. Stew
art claims that the costs were illegal and an ex-
tortion. There were 3S items in all, and as an
act of Assembly provides for a penalty OF $50
on every item of oyercharge by an Alderman,
Stewart claims that 81, 800 is due from Alder
man Porter.
B. F. Stewart was found at the Union
depot, where he has a tonsorial vocation,
being of African extraction. He explained
that the suit entered yesterday was civil
action supplemental to criminal charge of
extortioD, brought against Alderman Porter
before Alderman Carlisle last June, and
upon which the Lawrenoeviile Alderman
was held to court in bail of $500. Stewart
was disinclined to give any explanation OF
the matter, but finally related the inside
history appertaining to his side of the case.
He said:
Several months since a jealousy arose
between two colored women in Lawrence
vile. A colored man, who claim was in
the employ of the Lawrenceville Detective
Agency, heard of the row, and fomented ii
to the best of his ability. He made two
visits to the house of one of the women and
finally induced her to go to Alderman Por-
| ter's Office in his company and make an in
formation against the other woman and my
self This was done and the same officer ar
rested me and appeared and entered bail
for hearing then went to see the prose-
cutrix, and she admitted that she had no
evidence and had simply been actuated by
jealousy and the detective.
CHARGE AGAINST PORTER.
"Sheiwanted to withdraw the charges. but
had no money. We went to Porter's Office.
and paid the costs he taxed. Subsequently
through nv attorney, w. j. Jordan, made
criminal charges against Squire Porter, al
leging that he had violated his fee bill. The
specific charges were that the SIG 20 paid
to Squire Porter without a hearing in the
case included number Of subpenas which
we're not served and the presence Of five
witnesses who did not testify, besides other
extortions, in all 38 items of overcharges.
Alderman Porter was held for court in $500
| bail. The'civil suit follows as a matter of
| course"
Alderman Porter's Office was visited. The
| Alderman was not in, but a small boy vol
| unteered to fetch him. In a moment or two
| Mr.. Porter appeared. He declined to answer
| any questions about the Stewart case and
| sent for his attorney, Mr.. Sullivan, who
appeared with considerable promptitude.
Mr.. Sullivan maintained that the criminal
and civil suits in the case were based upon
| technicalities. He held that in charges of
misdemeanor an Alderman was allowed to
settle the case before hearing upon receipt
of the legal accrued costs from either plain
! tiff or defendant. and that there had been no
| illegal charges in the case. Squire Porter
here interjected claim that personal ami
| mus of Stewards attorney, w. j. Jordan,
was responsible tor the pushing Of the suits.
| SULLIVAN DOES THE TALKING.
Squire Porter to court because it was his
opinion that Alderman Porter had erred in
not incorporating both parties in the one
| Information. This raises a novel point.
| The act of Assembly does not prescribe that
| the Alderman must-where there are two
persons charged with joint offense consti-
| tuting misdemeanor-join them in the in
formation. 1t is perfectly proper for the
| magistrate to take separate informations
| against two or more defendants, only ex-
cepting cases of felony. But it is the duty
| of the District Attorney to indict jointly
where the same line of facts appear. There
is nothing that compels the Alderman.to
| put in the same iniormations the names OF
| two or more persons. 1t is my opinion, BY
the way, that upon this same point the De
partment of Public Safety will strike snag
| in its aldermanic prosecutions"
"Yes," said Alderman Porter, 'they
have started TRADE against all the Alder
men, and that induced Stewart to get IN his
case against me-"
The newspaper man said to Mr.. Porter:
cat the hearing before Alderman Carlisle
your constable swore in relation to the
| supenaing of II witnesses in the case that
| he only sup9naed certain of the names he
was intrusted with. How do you explain
that?"
"Yes," said Squire Porter, "my COD.
stable supenaed only few of the witnesses,
but he reported to my clerk that the whole
II had been served, and 1 taxed the costs
accordingly"
"Then upon whom should the blame
fall?" was asked.
"That will have to be decided by jury.
1 can only say that my taxation of costs in
the case was perfectly legal"
Attorney Sullivan terminated the inter-
view with the assertion that Mr.. Stewards
attorney had told him (Sullivan) that the
suits would not be pressed if Alderman
| Porter ceased asnersinp him (Jordanl