The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-05-30
]. f. EAST ACQUITTED
Proceedings Blocked by the Exclusion of
Certain Evidence.
Ex-POLICE JUSTICE cOuRTEO ENQUIRY
And Asked Tint Judge HanckcI
Over.rule the objection OF 1ais
Own Counsel and ALLOW the
Trial TO Proceed So That He
Might BE vindfcafeu.

|
The arraignment OF ex-Police Justice
J. Frank East in the Corporation Court
yesterday morning to answer one OF the
several indictments recently found
| against him by the grand jury, In which
he was charged with embezzlement while
Police Justice, caused quite a gathering
In that court room, and the proceedings
were watched with keen interest. Among
those present were n number of Mr..
casts friends. who had stood by him in
the ordeal through which he had passed
The indictments under which he was
arraigneG charged the embezzlement of
$3.50 In the month of July. 1893. the en-
tire amount OF all the indictments ag-
gregat!ng between $500 and $780,
Mr.. 10. NJ. Baum, Commemorative at
torney appeared for the State, while the
defence was represented by Judge d.
Tucker Brooke, of this city. and Colonel
X. E. Boykin. of Smithfield
The case was opened by Colonel Boy
km,who motioned the Court to uuash the
Indictment on the grounds that r. was
technically faulty. which motion was
overruled.
The following jury was then empanell-
ed to try the case: James r. Guy, J. e.
Wright, w. l.. TAFT, ]. II. Bayne, H. M.
Murray, r. w. Southgate, j. J. Samuels
George II. Gornto, C. H. Burkey, c. p.
Fitchett, II. r. Cooke, and NJ. T. Friary.
Mr.. II. II. Little was the stenogra pher.
before proceeding with the case Judge
Brooke outlined to the jury the manner
In which the records of the police were
made up. being first copied from the
police reports into the record book,
thence transcribed and turned over to
The Clerk of the Corporation Court who
In turn copied them in similar book
and upon 4 report of that official as to
the amount due the State, Police Justice
East would settle according ito the bal
ance against him. Counsel said that IL
at any time, had Mr. Easts attention;
been called to any apparent discrepancy
or ihaccuracy in his accounts, HE could,
and would, have shown, as he expects
to show In the course of this trial. that
he has paid every dollar due by him to
the State, and there being no sthorta re
there could be no embezZlement as
charged. Following, Mr.. Baum outlired
the character OF the charges against the
eX-J Justice, declaring that he expected to
show. and would show, that Mr.. East
mad appropriated State funds, as oharg-
eu-had stolen same, and put them in
his pocket.
Mr.. Louis Friedman. City Tailor. was
then called as the first witness, and
when Mr. Baum was about to ask him
question concerning money represented
| in a number of commitments. Col. Bow
make a point, which, in justice to the
prosecution. might require the absence
OF the jury, which was asked to retire
until the point could be heard. Col
Boykin then raised the point that the
law foI'bids the Police Justice from re-
ceiVing funds from prisoners after they
| have been committed to prison: that
such money so paid must under the law
be paid to the Clerk of the Corporation
Court. and not to the justice; that even
IL the accused had received the money
! III question he could not be convicted
| OF embezzlement for the reason that IL
| he had received 1t he could not under
the law have done so as an official or
agent or the State, but as an individual,
anu mat under the indictment under
winch Mr.. East was charged, he could
not be convicted as an individual.
! counsel held that under the law the
Justice was only allowed TO receive fines
| from prisoners before, and not after
they had been committed TO iail. He
urged that If Mr.. East did receive the
money as charged, he received 1t as an
liroiViduai, and not as Police Justice.
he believed that the Court would sus
tain his point and if he did, Mr.. East
was prepared to meet an investigation
under an indictment properly drawn
that he courted an investigation of his
acts. Counsel said that IL Mr.. East was
really snort. as alleged. the amount
could nave been recovered by civil pro-
cedure; that such proceedings would
nave developed that fact whether or
not such serious charge as has been
brought against his client ought TO
nave been brought. He argued that II
MI. East is acquitted OF the charge of
emoeZziing these funds as Police JUS
tice, he could not avail himself of the
pea mar lie had once been put In
jeopardy as to this matter; that the
grand jury could again indlct him for
| emoezzling the funds as agent for the
persons from whom he received Them
he then moved to exclude the evidence
that the money in question was received
through the Tailor and CITY Serpaant.s
\ Office.
Judge. Brooke of counsel 70. the de-
| tense then arose and said he was au-
| thCrlzed by Mr.. Easl TO withdraw the
point made by Col. Boykin because he
'EasO wanted the matter investigated
ana ala not want the cas- to be ouasho6
on technical!ty that he (Brooke) could
hot comply with MIR. East's request 10
Withdraw the point. becaus= lit was we'll
taken, but that he (Brooke) hoped tho;
me Court would see its way clear To
1,Verrule the motionimade by Col. Boy
KIN so that the trial might go on.
| MT. Baum then addressed the C,ourt
on the point raised by Col. Bovkin Ue
TOOK the position that the act in cues
tloff having been committed three years
| ago civil proceeding would not have
Deeh the proper course. He admitted
mat the money should have been paid
10 the Clerk OF the Courts, but Insisted
| .nat MIR. East in receiving 1t acted as
a ,uaa ana as an officer of the State and