Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-01-15
GOES BACK TO JAIL.
The Justice Refuses 10 Discharge Or Re.
ducs the Bail Of Norris.
COMPROMISE WITH WITHERS HINTED.
knowledge of Such n Thing-ln.
tercstlng Developments.

Yesterday morning John T. Norris. the
Ohio detective arrested at Ford's Hotel
last Monday night as a suspicious char
actor, was taken from the city jail TO the
Police Court. where his counsel. Mr.. ID.
G. Richardson. submitted n motion either
TO discharge the prisoner or reduce his
bail, which motion Justice Cruichield,
after hearing both MI. Richardson and the
Commemorative Attorney. refused.
II Will be remembered that when Nor
rls's case was first called In this cour; 1t
was continued until the 18th, when
Parker. the gold-brlck swindler. Will be
given a hearing. The granger detective
was allowed bail In he sum Of $1,000,
which he declared he was unable to give.
Samuel Emery. the ~bookmaker and turf
man. whose arrest as a suspicious char
acter followed closely behIni that of Nor
ris. was also allowed bail in the same
sum. which ne produced forthwith.
Since then Norris has been confined In
the city Jail. Yesterday. however. Mt.
Richardson submitted to the Court that
the Commonwealth had no legal grounds
upon which to ho'd his client, averred
that he had documents which showed
concluslvely that Norris was a square
and honest man, and should not be
thrown into custody on the suspicion OF
being unlawfully associated with a man
whom he branded as a thief and a -rooK
of the most desperate character.
MIR. RICHARDSON'S REASONS.
When Mr.. Richardson made known to
the Court his intention, he said that ne
would Ike for MIR. Smith, the Common
wealth's Attorney. to be sent for. th't
he might hear what he had 10 say. Mt.
Smith was found in his office ana WIS
soon in the court chamber. .
Mr.. Richardson asked II the Court
wished TO 20 into a hearing OF ~ casc'
Justice Crutchfleld said that inaSinIcn
rs the reduction Of bail had been askt',
he would Ike to know the reas''s Oi
the defence for making such '1''2'.
Counsel for the prisoner stated NIX 'He
only charge against John i. MOTIFS 80
one preferred In the newspapers. wn.cn
tho Court could not consider. was that
of being a suspicious character. lie
wished Mr.. Norris TO be dealt win III
the manner in which persons under ar
res. in similar cases are usually ueait
$3.50
with.
Mr.. Richardson referred to he part
hat Emery had taken in the case ahu
. hi discnarge, and pointed 1ui re 'I,
--nce between the roles OF Emery anu
Norris in this case. one came % Sch
l.d ana was first to give The news mat
.Yerv was here for the purpose 81 1t
T., Plrker, was first II produce col CHI
80, proof that G. W. Garden. the morse
M from Tennessee, was Frank Look
yc Smith. one Of the greatest c)nh-
, O. men anl crooks in the 'Ai-ei
,ft,.s. Mr.. Richardson aVerrel max II
N.s 10 the Interest Of this SanG o nave
this detective locked UP a. a suspicious
character. because IN - DONG whel 49,
lis would come TO testify against fdrhrr
his evidence woGli be regarded W!.h some
Suspicion a. least.
Justice Crutchfeld here stated that he
was very sorry that he discharged Emery.
rad he known at the time he did so
what he learned yesterday morning ne
would not have done SO.
SPEAK BADLY OF NORRIS.
Mr.. Smith remarked that he had re-
qaestcd Emtry's release upon tue
authority OF the Chief OF Police, who
had received letters from various places
concerning the detective which were Of
a "dero%atory character. The
cations .secivcd regarding Emery were
- srthdatory Of the bookmaher, who had
also been given Il good name by Robert
\. P.akcrton. Mr.. Smith objected TO
being forced into an examination ia the
present matter when the Commonwealth
vps not ready. He would Ike to have
had time In which to confer with Major
Poe and Sergeant Tomlinson in order that
some line of action might he agreed
upon.
ar. Richardson lail great stress upon
tha fact that Emery had been released
u.on letters received here. while MS
client. who also produced letters and
testimonials OF all kinds. was held IN Jail.
To this the Commemorative Attorney
renliel that he ani the police authorities
were IN receipt Of communications con-
ccrnius both Norris and Emery. Their
information concerning the former was
unfavorablc and concerning the latter
was favorable.
AN ALLEGED COMPROMISE.
Mr.. Richardson then spoke of "a wills
ner,d rumor to the effect that Emery's
discharge was to some extent due TO a
compromise with Mr.. y. w. Withers. the
victim OF the gold-brick transaction here,
by which the latter had or would receive
hack his 5000. He added that he knew
Major Poe. Mr.. Smith. Sergeant Tomlinson,
ard the other officers in the case too well
TO even intimate that they gave sanction
10 any such transaction or had any know
ledge of such a thing. Mr.. Smith and
Mr.. l.. O. Wendenburg. counsel for both
Parker and Emery, denied any knowledge
whatever Of such a deal.
The prisoners counsel then read a large
number of testimonials from prominent
officials in Indiana, Ohio. n Illinois
which commended Detective Norris IN
high terms, and submitted the case with
the statement from Mr.. John Grail, OF
Toledo, O., one of the victims who was
present. that Norris had always dealt
fairly and honestly with him.
The Court determined that 1t would
not force the Commonwealth into n hear
ing of the case, and refused the motion
Of Mr.. Richardson. Detective Norris
therefore, went back 10 Jail, where ht
had arranged TO remain even II he had
been discharged. until the examination OF
Parker alias Smith had come of.
TIL. Sheriff Of Loudoun county will be
here on the 18th. and. II is expected,
will figure in an interesting manner in the
trial of Smith alias Parker. 1t is claimed
as stated In Sundays Dispatch. thai
Emery, the New York bookmaker. fur.
n.shed bail for one Of the swindlers who