The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-09-01
PINKERTON' CAINSTSLEUTH
Serious Charges Against a Detective
Made on the Witness Stand.

to Which the Court Refused to Ad-
NIT as Testimonial War of Words
Between Attorneys-An on Account
of One Frank Pollard Charged With
Keeping a Gaming House.
The trial of Frank Pollard in the city
court yesterday, on a charge of keeping a
gaming house, brought out some testi-
mony which sounded rather interesting,
and showed that littlelove is lost between
some of the detectives who do service for
the county and city.
The case was begun Thursday after
noon, but was continued until yesterday
morning Pollard was charged with be-
ing the owner and operator of gaming
house at South Broad and East Broad
streets. The first witness testified that it
was his belief Pollard was the proprietor
of the place.
Joe Clarke was the next witness and
most important one, as he originally re-
ported the case and was down on the
indictment as the prosecutor He testi-
fed the place was run by Pollard and
that both 'crap game and Skin
game" went on there. He claimed he had
quit Pollard because Pollard wouldn't
pay him any money.
SAID 1T WAS HOwARD's PLACE.
Justice Elsinger testified then for the
defense. He stated that T. A. Howard
had formerly paid the rent on the place.
but that he had failed TO pay rent for
June and July, and the bill was placed in
his hands for collection twas then paid
by Pollard and receipts were given to
Pollard, but in Towards name
Detective kavanaugh was then placed
on the stand and the testimony became a
shade more interesting to the spectators
around the court room. He testified he
had had instructions sometime ago to
look after the place and to make a raid if
there was any gambling going on. He
had been there often he said but could
find no evidences of any gambling. He
! said the place was a free-and-easy and
that he didn't consider it as disorderly
as some of the Broughton street places Of
similar character.
MADE SOME BOLD CHARGES.
The solicitor general -cross-examined
him severely about the interest he seemed
to take in the case. He admitted he had
| talked with some of the witnesses but de-
MED that he threatened any of them He
| intimated very strongly in some of his re-
| plies that it was his belief that
| Detective Morgan had accepted
money not to prosecute certain gam
! bling places. He stated he had summoned
three witnesses because he wanted to
show that Detective Morgan went in
! place run by Tom Golden and had failed
to prosecute the gamblers there. He
then stated, i'll answer to a question as to
| why he took such an interest in the case,
! that a man named Joe Clarke had
formerly been employed there, that
| Clarke was a spotter for Detective Nor
gan, that Morgan had told Pollard he
| 10 tai al t. H.,
ploy, that Detective Bossell had after
ward told Pollard that he need not keep
| Clarke, and that thereupon Pollard dis
charged Clarke and the suit was soon
afterward brought. He did not believe
| Pollard guilty, and he did not want to
see him suffer for something that was
caused by one of the city detectives
Detective Bossell testified to about the
same effect, while Pollard, in making his
statement, asserted that the place was
run by Howard and that he was only an
employe. Pollard said that on one or two
occasions Detective Morgan had asked
him to lend him 50, which he had always
refused to do. He told a slightly differ
ent story as to why Clarke had been dis
charged,
ASKED ABOUT AN AFFIDAVIT.
Detective Morgan was put on the stand
in rebuttal. He said there was no truth
money from anyone under the circum-
stances charged, and that it was untrue
that he had ever tried to borrow any
money from Pollard He said mis- only
connection with the case was as the bal
lift of the solicitor generals Office, and
that complaint had been brought there
before the case was made
In cross examining Attorney A. S. Way,
who was defending the prisoner, asked
Mr.. Morgan how about the affidavit
signed by one W. G. Frady to the effect
that he had received $40 in an illegal
manner. Solicitor General Fraser wanted
the affidavit produced. Detective Nor
gan said he knew nothing about it, and
that if any such affidavit had been made
it was lie.
Just here the court took a hand IN the
proceedings and stopped further person
alities. He refused to admit the afidavit
even if it were procured.
THE ARGUMENTS WAX WARM.
In the arguments Solicitor General
Fraser opened, stating the law in the
case, and MIR. Way spoke for the defense,
stating he would not enter into the little
row between the detectives, but would
base his argument on the claim that the
place was operated by Howard and that
Pollard was only an employe.
The solicitor general followed and made
| defense of Mr.. Morgan from the at
tacks that had been made on him on the
witness stand. Shaking his finger at Mr..
Way, he said:
you take advantage Of poor Howard s
absence and try TO saddle this offense on
him"
Quick as fash Mr.. Way started up.
and, facing the solicitor, said
DO you mean to insiuuate that I per-
sonally undertook this thing"
But matters went no further The
court again took hand, and the deputies
were instructed TO preserve order which
was done, and Mr.. Way took his seat.
POLLARD FOUND GUILTY.
The argument was resumed without
further trouble and the jury, after being
out about half an hour, brought in a YER
dict of guilty on both counts In the iudict-
ment. Pollard was fined $500 and costs,
or sentenced TO serve six months. He was
unable TO pay the fine and went TO Jail,
where he will, in all probability, serve
out his sentence
The case is interesting in that Il brings
out the i'll feeling between some Of the
detectives. This has been known TO ex-
ist for some time and it is accounted for
in different ways. While Bossell and
Kavanaugh were on the stand giving
their testimony and scoring Morgan, the
latter was in the back part Of the court
room glaring at them fiercely and they
] lOohpd apnn1lv Harra ~ Ia