Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1894-02-27
POLICE INVESTIGATION.
Policemen Frank Romero and Paulin
Garcia on Trial Before the City
Council - Conflicting
Testimony.
You're a liar! You're another!

|
Romero and Paulin Garcia by the city
council last night. 1t WAS case of six
of one and half dozen of the other. The
charges we're preferred by the officers in
command at Fort Marcy and recited that
the policemen grossly insulted three pri'
Yates of company D, 10th infantry
named, Thos. E. Thompson, George Up,
ton and Joseph Ball. 1t was also alleged
that Policeman Romero pulled his gun
on the soldiers. The preponderance OF
testimony was on the side of the defense
but the prosecution had the most re.
liable testimony as it's witnesses all told
the same story, whereas the witnesses for
the defense fatty contradicted each other.
| When the meeting was called to order
there were present all the members ex-
cepting Counc1lmen Catron, Delgado and
Mayor Twitchell. Councilman Palen act
ed as mayor protein. The stuffy little
room where the council meetings are held,
was crowded almost to suffocation and
one had to smoke strong cigar to pre-
vent the foul air nauseating him. The SOL
diers were on hand in full force as were
likewise the friends of the policemen.
After appointing City Attorney Spiess to
act for the accused, Lieut. Stottler to act
for the prosecution and Gen. Bartlett to
act for the council, the trial proceeded.
THE TESTIMONY.
The first witness called was Private
Thompson, D company. He testified that
he, in company with four others were
walking down San Francisco street in a
perfectly sober condition, when they were
stopped by two policeman who grossly
insulted them by the use of vile language
and calling them approbrious names. The
witness further testified that one of the
soldiers asked the policeman to whom he
was talking, when he replied by starting
to draw his revolver and the use of more
abusive language. They went in search
of the sheriff to report the matter, but
failing to find that official they proceeded
to their barracks and reported the matter
to Lieut.. Kirby. Thompson affirmed that
neither he nor any ofhls companions were
drunk. Attorney Spiess for the defense,
sub ected Thompson to rigid cross ex-
animation. The attorney endeavored to
impeach the witness by attacking his
credibility, but the council could not see
that the past had anything to do with the
present and SO the attorney had to con-
fine himself to the case being tried.
Thompson's cross examination developed
nothing new. He averred that he believed
the policemen probably picked the quar-
rel 30 as to have cause to arrest them.
RELIABLE TESTIMONY.
| Lieut.. Kirby next testified. His was
the only testimony given that could be
implicitly relied upon. The lieutenant
testified that the soldiers came to him on
the night of the trouble and reported the
difficulty they had just had with the
policeman. He gave it as his opinion that
the soldiers were perfectly sober.
Private Upton testified substantially
the same as Thompson.
Corporal Weissert testified to the So
briefly of the men as did also Matt Pier
sol.
| THE DEFENSE TEsTIFIEs.
Policeman Frank Romero, one of the
accused, was the first witness, called by
the defense. He fatty contradicted all
the witnesses for the prosecution. He said
he met the soldiers coming out of Henry
Pullman's saloon and that they were very
boisterous. He told them to keep quiet
when one of the soldiers called him vile
names. He did not use any vile language
whatever in addressing the men. He de-
clared that he did not start to draw his
revolver, but that Policeman Garcia
| pulled out his handouts and the soldiers
thought it was revolver. He further
declared that three of the men were
| why he did not arrest the men if they
were drunk, but he answered evasively
and could give no justifable excuse.
Paulin Garcia, the other accused police
man, testified, through interpreter Geo,
johnson, the same as Romero only he
endeavored to make his testimony too
strong and thus injured his case. He
created laughter by saying that he could
arrest man better in Spanish than he
could in English. He emphatically de-
MED that either he or Romero used any
abusive language but swore that the
soldiers did. Garcia was decidedly mixed
| In his testimony.
G. M. Conklin, Jose Cienfuegos, Amado
Alarid and Jose Gutierrez all testified
in favor of the defense, but their testi-
mony was extremely conflicting and con-
Trajectory. Marshal Antonio Alarid testi-
fed to having arrested Thompson, one
of the accusers, several times. This closed
the case for the defense.
WHO WAS WRONG!
The prosecution called in rebuttal, Hen
ry Pullman, who testified that the soldiers
we're perfectly sober when they left his
saloon and that the policemen accosted
them without reason.
Neither the attorneys for the prosecu-
ton or the defense desired to argue the
case and it was submitted to the council
for their action. They will report upon
it at the next meeting.
1t is impossible to forecast the decis-
ion of the council as they one and all ex-
pressed themselves at the conclusion of
the trial as being much confused. It is
very probable thatif the4policemen are
not discharged they will be severely CEN
sured. However, on general principles
the community will shed no tears If they
are both promptly fred.
LETTER FROM THE SHERIFF.
At the last regular meeting of the