Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-11-15

and Sutherland that District Attorney Cole was
not rs honest in his efforts against policy as
they imagined. lie once met Horbach &
King in Washington Circle. Had couversa-
| ton with Horbach there.
Mr.. Cahill hat about
GreaieT-''I don't like TO answer.
M Cshill-''But you must 1t is just what
you should answer"
Greaiey-"weIl. was looking for see a
month. and thought that Mr.. Horbaeh had in
fuence enough 70 get me promoted
THOUGHT HoRBAcH HAD INFLUENCE.
On cross-examination by District Attorney
Cole, GreaIey said he asked Horbach's assist
ance because he thought Horbach had influence
with the district attorney.
District Attorney Cole Why did you not
/ ask me YOURSELF!
Grealey Because l am a man who would
/ rather get somebody else to work for me-
The district attorney 8 crosse Examination COW
cred about the same ground a. in his examina-
tion of Sutherland. Grealey stoutly denied
I that there was any collision between him and
the firm. He stated that he had never received
! q penny from them and said ike Sutherland,
that he wanted TO get more evidence before
making move.
/ Policeman r. T.. Weldon testified that he was
present at the interview between Sutherland
and the district attorney after the raid but that
he had not attempted to prevent Sutherland
/ from answering that officer. He did not step
Z
| sign that he was making matters worse.
/ In reply to the district attorney Officer
Weldon said that he did suggest TO Sutherland
/ TO get out OF the Office.
why. MIR. WeedOn?''
( "Oh. well, because wanted to get away from
/ there
| THE ARGUMENTS.
This closed the case for the defense and Mfr.
Nuuowney began the opening address to the
jury. He said 1t was a most important case
they had been trying important. 10 every man
III the District. The protection of the people
OF the District was at stake. and the question TO
be answered was, should outraged law be al
lowed to go UNPUBLISHED? The effort Of the
government was not TO punish honest men. but
10 punish men who had violated their high trust.
Mr.. Mullowney then briefly discussed the evil
denee presented by the government and
claimed that it left no doubt OF the guilt of the
defendants.
Mr.. siIiers for the defense. in a word or two
said that the conviction OF the two officers
meant the triumph of the policy business in
/ this city. He trusted that the jury would by
their verdict give the business its des,h blow.
Mr.. Cahlil, for the defense called the atten-
ton OF the jury to the excellent character OF
the accused officers. and asked if the jury would
convict such men on testimony OF the character
OF thst used BY the government. Horbaeh
cared for no one but Horbach. and he had
helped to kill the old company simply TO get a
"a man who had worked at no honest business
Tor twenty-five years. and yet the government
relied upon his testimony TO forever ruin two
honest men. King was a man who testified to
escape the prison. Horbach has been proven
to be an unmitigated liar Sutherland and
Grealey have been proven to be men of truth
and veracity. VINO should be believed?
DISTRICT ATTORNEY COLES CLOSING ADDRESS.
District Attorney Cole. for the government
closed. He said the case too plain TO need
much argument The charge simply pro-
noting policy That should not be overlooked.
II not bribery not conspiracy. nothing but
promoting policy. With the consequence OF
I their verdict they had nothing to do. The
question was merely were these men guilty2
Great stress had been laid upon the fact that
they bad been men OF good character and CT
families. Probably most men were such be-
/ fore they became criminals. Policy Tie
worst kind of gambling, because il was the great
engine which led nine tenths of the people
victed before me conrts here to crime.
I The District police force WIS not being
fought against in this trial. 1t was a
defense of the force, and the jury
would be Promoting crime il il failed
to convict these men. These accused Off
cers were efficient officers but that was no
excase for their later crime 1t was an nndis-
pHted fact that they knew that policy was going
on in the Evans building. but they did not
raise their hands against it, Was not that pro-
noting policy? 1t was stopped after all. but
not by them or through their assistance. If
some one else did il they could have stopped it.
Had they asked for it a warrant would have
been given them which would have taken them
anywhe in the Evans building or anywhere
else. The account slip which read, "Grealey,
800. was written by Horbach the day
before the raid. at time VIXEN he
felt secure against molestatlon. The slip
found BIZ the raiding party and
the strongest kind OF eorroboration OF Hor-
bach's testimony Ii was not reasonable 10
| suppose that Sutherland forgot. as he claimed.
I what he. Horbach and Lawyer Gloss talked
/ about when they met last summer in the Office
Of Gloss. The fact that they met there again
| two DAYS after the raid i another very myster-
/ ious and unexplained occurrence. So was
/ Sutherland failure 10 remember whether he
did or did not introduce Caullifower, a we'll
known policy writer. TO King King swore that
1 he did, ard Sutherland did not or con3a not deny
il. Even after the raid Sutherland sHid that
I the firm could not be convicted. although he
\ knew that ell their paraphernalia had been cap
! tured. In conclusion the district attorney said
/ the government evidence and the testimony
[ of the two defendants left no room for doubt
to their guilt and he was sure the jury felt he
| did.
JUDGE AILLEB's CHARGE
! Judge Miller. in charging the jury, said the
I first thing 70 be found whether game Of
policy had been carried on during the time
j
! named in the information, and If it had then
/ they should next ind whether not the de-
| PENDANTS had been connected with it. If the
/ jury found that the defendants did any act
which aided or shielded the policy firm then
/ they guilty. His honor then explained
the law relative to the weight TO be attached to
the testimony Of accomplices. The jury should
/ consider the failure Of the defendants to raid
the firm if they found they believed that policy
vas being carried on by them.
l. l..
saying that the whole case was question Of
/ fact, to be alone decided by the jury.
VERDICT OF GUILTY.
| The jury retired at 1906, and at 10:l4 re-
turned with verdict of guilty. After the jury
had been polled Mr. Cahiil gave notice of a
/ motion for a new trial. and the convicted men
were released upon their former bonds.
LoRENz REICH'S TOEAYEK ACsRRUCH