The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-01-06
The Case OF McPhilIips.

II AaSG III NACA htittpS
At the meeting of the Bar Associa-
ton on Monday evening, ex-Judge
Douglass uttered the following re-
markable sentences
If the Sheriff has been derelict in his duties,
as TIE W would have us believe, we should
have precise facts. Charges are not charges
where names, times and places are not specified.
Well. let us see:--
On SUNDAY, NOVEMBER s, 1891,
THE NEWS reported that Judge Lip
pincott. in open Court, administered
a severe rebuke to Sheriff McPhillips
for the scandalously lax and inefficient
management of his Office. The imme-
diate cause was the neglect of the
Sheriff and his officers to serve war
rants and other Court papers.
THE NEWS added the general
charge that the Sheriff was seldom to
be found in his Office, and that he left
it in charge of a man who was often
drunk.
On MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1901,
THE News reported that John G.
Besson, a leading lawer, practicing in
Hoboken, complained that a case in
Chancery in which he was concerned
was greatly delayed by the dilatori-
ness of the Sheriff in serving subp9-
mas.
Also that Thomas F. Kelly, lawyer,
of this city, asserted that he had
placed in the Sheriff hands in August
q summons which had not been served
at that date (Nov. 81.
Also that on Saturday, November
2, Sabattino Spiotta was arrested on
a bench warrant by a Sheriff's officer.
locked up in Police Headquarters,
and there forgotten.
Also that on the date of publication
Nov. 81 the Sheriff had failed to serve
the warrants in 53 cases wherein the
Grand Jury had found indictments.
On TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1891,
THE NEWS reported Mr.. W~ortendyke
of Carrick & Wortendyke, lawyers, as
saying that their clients had been
compelled to pay Illegal fees, also that
the service of papers by the Sheriff
was extremely bad.
Also that another firm, who were
willing to substantiate their state
ments, if legally called on to do SO,
complained of the impossibility of
obtaining itemized bills from the
Sheriff, while his charges were appar-
entity extortionate. They had also
found it hard to collect money from
him which he received on account of
executions.
Also that Frederick Frambach of
Potts g. Frambach, LAWYERS, said he
sent a subpoena to the Sheriff's Office
in August and it was not served until
November l.
Also that Ex-Judge Voorhees, said
he found the Sheriff dilatory in max
ing returns IN executions.
On WEDNESDAY,, NOVEMBER II,
1891, THE NEWS reported Max Rosen-
berg, lawyer, as complaining that the
Sheriff entrusted the business of his
Office to incompetent men.
Also that James Brodsn, Clerk of
the First District Court, attributed
the bad work of the Sheriff's Office TO
the insufficient pay of the constables
working for it.
OK THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10. 1891,
THE News told how Minturn d Nevin,
lawyers, were obliged to threaten an
application for a writ of amercement
to induce the Sheriff to show some
activity in serving a writ OF replevin
in the suit of Cunningham u Co.,
against John Grimm of Hoboken.
Also that Mr.. Russ of Russ & Hep
penheimer. lawyers, complained OF
the outrageous charges made by the
Sheriff for collecting a judgment uf
$500 in favor of Bryan Smith, also of
the impossibility of getting an item
lied statement OF the fees.
On FRIDAY, NOVEMBER u, 1891,
THE NEWS gave an account OF the
trouble Thomas T. Kennedy, lawyer,
and Max Rosenberg, managing clerk
for Vredenburg il Giarretson, had over
executions obtained by them against
the same property. The Sheriff in
formed Mr.. Kennedy that the prop
erty was clear and proceeded with his
execution, although, months prev
iously. Mr.. Rosenberg had placed his
execution in the Sheriff's hands, that
official having promptly forgotten
all about it.
On SATURDAY, NOVEMBER IA, 1891,
THE NEWS told how the Sheriff ne
elected for six months an attach ment
confided to him by Messrs. Babbitt &
Lawrence, LAWYERS, acting for a New
York firm. When confronted with
his neglect, the Sheriff had the impu-
dence to deny receiving the attach
ment. He was promptly convinced
Of his error, and then he begged for
mercy.
Are these allegations broad enough
and precise enough to suit Judge
Douglass? Perhaps he will admit that
they at least call for enquiry.
If the Bar Association committee