New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-18

Tho sneci6c charge against Devery IL that May
&c. 1894, he accepted 800 from Francis W. Seagrist'
who was then at work on the American Surety
Buildng. for neglectng to enforce the police regu-
latons An Indictment was FOUND on March ID
1895 Just a year ago to-day.
The Indictment under which he IL now beins trieu
was found when he captain Of the Old slip
station He went from that command to the Ell
drldge-st station. and while there was accused OF
conniving Mt the maintenance OF dsorderly houses.
lie was indicted by the Grand Jury and tried ana
dismissed by the Police Commissioners. He was
acquitted In oyer and Terminer on the indictment.
and then his reinstatement az captain OF police was
ordered The Police Commissioners reinstated him
and Immediately suspended him pending the result
OF the present trial.
Captan Dcvery was In court carly. and appeared
slightly nervous He sat beside Colonel James. and
now and then prompted tho questions to be asked
OF tho alesmcn under examination.
No special panel had been called. MI Rollins
opened the proceedings by asking that the defend
an, be tried on the last count Of tho five included
I'm the Indictment. Colonel James objected. unless
tho first four counts be dismissed altogether lie
said that II Illegal TO try on one count ana hoih
the other four for purposes OF reference Inc hi'h
count charges extorton. tho others charge bribery
Justice smyih ruled against Colonel James ana
allowed him an exception.
The first Juror accepted the second talesnan
examined lie was Anton J. Lehman. manu-
faciurer Of canned goods az No 2sl Broome-st'
Herman Iow.nheim n salesman. Of No. 10 Broad
way was asked II he had read I'm the newspapers
tho reports Of the I.cxow investigation and said:
Il began OF them but they did not interest me-
/ dli not believe they could be true.
This is the question that disposed OF Lowenheim:
The fact that a witness has been involved In an
act Of iurpltuie IS fact 10 be considered ny the
Jury but 1, docs not follow that because a witness
has been involved in crime prior to becoming
L.. Ia cro1f oil In
you understand what mean?'
John A. Burke. barber at NO II hing-s,.;, iaea
answer any OF the puzzng questions. and Justice
Smyth sustained the challenge TO excuse MIN Tor
lack u Intelligence The defence objected. as they
DID 10 challenge based on inability 10 reply 10
hypothetical questions and the Justice IN everything
the objection said. II am carrying out the letter
OF n" Law. bu; am not certain that could answer
some Of those questions myself
Henry = Chiffon OF No i59 West Forty nfth-st..
"A banker At No. - broadway. passed successfully
through ordeal OF the attack Of the prosecution
but he yielded to the defence when IN answer 20
"a question from Mr.. Elkus. he said Il have formed
an opinion regarding the almost universal cpfrup-
ton among tho police. especially among the higher
officials. but | know nothing OF the facts In this
case
Then IN answer to IN. court ne said: Il have
bias against the prisoner but should require him
prove his Innocence before | would acquit him
IN the Court told you you must consider him IN
Smyth
Il would accept the ruling OF tho Court"
statement that he prejudiccd against the police
and not personally prejudiced against the defend
ant lie told of having spoken about the case with
friend and Of the latter having expressed an opn-
ion on the
What did he say?" asked the Court
Soak him" was the reply.
There was "A quickly suppressed chuckle through
the courtroom. and then after some further
explanation Mr. Chiffon was excused on the de-
PENDANTS challenge for bias
when adjourned III to-day. fifteen tacsmen
had been examined and only one Juror chosen