The evening world., 1894-03-16
WEsTERVELT ON THE RACK,
Trial of the Police Captain or
Charges MISE by Byrnes.
Accused Of Permitting Policy Play
ing IN His Precinct.

tnlS morning..
This case has excited great interest
Two other captains. Price and Martens
were tried recently on charges OF neg.
lect OF duty for allowing dls1rictly
houses 10 exist IN their precincts. that
were afterwards railcd by Supt. Byrncs's
men.
Capt. West rrvelt liz now asked to ex.
plain before me Commissioners why he
permitted policy gambling In ms pre-
cinCt.
by the absence Of the four tumnll
sioners. 1t began. however. with COM
m%issioners McClave and MacI.ean pre-
siding. President Martin and CommIs-
Lawyers L. i. Price and Fred r..
House appeared as counsel for capt,
West-rvelt. The charge made by. Supt.
Byrnes was read. In It capt. Wester-
Snops in various parts Of his precinct.
The Captain pleaded not guilty to nc
nesses, a majority of whom we're pres.
ent to speak in capt. Westerrelt's be-
half. were then sworn.
The first policy shop referred 70. n
tho evidence liz said to be at lJ6 East
Ninety-eighth street.
Supt. Byrnes called as the first witness
James W. Slaght, of lB East Nineteenth
street. The witness stated that he vas
u ltIOi hlu hiI'" spil'A'''t "a ~
place mentioned as a policy shop. on
March / he visited the policy shop and
saw a number OF people. many OF them
women. playing policy.
The witness said he visited the place
several days afterwards, and on about
March 4 he succeeded in buying "A policy
slip and played IT there. The next house
mentioned was 246 East Ninety-seyenth
street. The witness stated that there
had been an error In recording this num-
Der. 1t should have been go East Nine
ty-seventh street.
LAWYER Price. for the defense, objected
to any evidence being given against a
house not specified IN the complaint.
The Commissioners sustained him. Wit
ncsa stated that he visited another pol
ley shop at 2ol2 First avenue; in a ;ene-
ment-house. He saw a number OF peO-
pie playing policy there.
Mr.. Slaght said he bought a policy-slip
In the house at 20l2 First avenue, which
was ostensibly "A wallpaper store. The
slips were produced In evidence. The wit
ness was prevented by the counsel for
the defense. In numerous cases from tell
His knowledge was gained by conversa-
ton with people and hiring them to pur-
chase policy-slips. He could not pro;
duce direct evidence that the slips had
been purchased in the shops.
III houses at 322. 333. 3l East One
Hundred and Fourth street. and also
a house on the south side Of East one
Hundred and Fourth street, near Sec
Ond avenue, were mentioned by the wit
ness as policy shops.
on motion OF the counsel for the de
tense, the evidence regarding the houses
on the south side of East one Hundred
and Fourth street was stricken out. The
ground was that It was too indefinite.
Hundred and Fourth street. the witness
testified that he went there on March ..
many people enter and go away. The
next day the witness visited the house
again. and found a door open on the first
ioor through which he saw people enter:
The witness stated that he knocked at
the door. 1t was opened. but when the
person saw the witness, the door was
slammed In his face. He visited 333 East
one Hundred and Fourth street.
The witness stated that he talked with
people who played policy In that house
on March Z. but that part of the iestl-
mony was excluded on Lawyer Houses
motion.
The examination was marked by fie-
Quent squabblcs between the counsel for
the defense and the commissioners, over
Price asked the witness the name of tn"
person who first told him that there was
policy gambling going on In the house
In question, the witness stated that his
the neighborhoed, but refused to give his
name.
Lawyer Price then requested the Com
missioners to demand the name from
the WltItSS. commissioner WAY i''ti
did so. and Slaght replied that he, would
not obey until he had conferred with
his superiors.
The counsel for the defense said that
the witness was in contempt N moved
that all OF his testimony be stricken
from the record. The motion was denied,
and the counsel for the defense refused to
further c~ross-examine the witness;
at st. Georges Hotel, Twelfth street and
broadway, was the next witness.
His testimony for the most part was
corroborative of that OF the p~recen,ns
witness.
The prosecution closed it's case by call
ing Germon Fisher. colored. OF ZIG East
Ninety-seventh street, to the stand itt
shop at l56 East Ninety-eighth street,
capt. Westervelt was then called II
his own defense. His counsel moved tc
dismiss the charge, but the motion was
denied.
The Captain said he knew Of the tene
mcnt at l56 East Ninety eighth street for
-four or five weeks past He and his de
tectives had personally visited this place
and found no evidence of poltcy-playint
going on there.
Supt. Byrnes asked Capt. Wcs,orvel'
II II was possible for policy shops I,
exist in his precinct with no or li patrol
men under his command to prevent II.
Counsel for the defendant objected oI
the ground that 1t had not been show
that Can't. Westcrvelt had failed To us
az 'Af '''A' - 49, t'' W. '
the alleged policy shops. The objection
was o~verruled, and after an exception
had been noted. Capt. Wcstcrvelt said
Il have instructed my men to procur
evidence against the alleged policy shop
and have made personal investigation
\ captain has other duties to attend L
and cannot devote all his time to suCl
work"
Supt. RyrnPs asked the witness severa
questions relative to what constitute,
a police captains efficiency in the dis
charge OF his duty, and then Policema
Simon Waugh took the stand.
He said he had visited most Of tn
places mentioned in the complaint, Nv
or three times a day during the pas
four weeks, but could find no CvidenC
OF policy playing.
Ward Detectives George Smith an
William j. Mooney. gave testimony I
the same effect. as dii a score q
other, policemen who were subsequent
called.
Decision in the case will BE- rendere
later.
The sunday WOrid's Edsfr
$500. " -