The times., 1897-12-04

Daniel Williams, formerly in charge %
the fines collected at the police court, and
Who last year was discovered 70 be short
in his accounts, and has since then been
tried al d col victed of emtezzlement, was
yesterday given his liberty by Judge Brad
ley, on q motion OF his attorneys, Messrs
Tracy L. Jeffords and R. Newton Donuei
son, ia srrest Of judgment on the ground
that the indictment under which he was
tried was faulty.
Williams ana his attorneys were at cTimi-
nal court No. yesterday morning, having
received a notification from Judge Bradley
that he as ready to give his decision. y
large crowd Of lawyers andother interested
spectators was also present. Williams
looked ssllow and jaded, but in his "a &c
and ir those CT lis attorneys there was a
large hope based on the very strong argl-
ments they put forward.
Tho decision Of Judge Bradley was On a
rsctiDu iu arrest Of Judgment and for q
ne.1 trial, made at the time of the trial
a month 60, and argued a few days after
that by the lawyers. IT followed very
closely the arguments made by Mcssrs. JEFF
furds and DoEnclsou, and fully sustained
nearly al OF them The opinion was
e writer one, Judge Fradley having
cons,de-ec the arguments on both sides
with great care. The statutes and eases
bearing on Williams case were cited at
Considerable length.
The decision recites that the money ta ken
by williams dfd not belong 10 the District
OF Columbia as the Indictment charged,
hut To- tie police court. On this point the
Suggestion was made that al any time
fines might bt RENTED by he police court
and turned over by it to tie offender fined
The second defect Of tie Indictment was
that Williams was not al officer Of the
District, as tile statute cont emplates, Tor
the purposes Of embezzIemenr.
After recitlne the history OF the case
carefully, as il has been given heretofore
in The Times, Judge Bradley took up the
plea OF Williams attorney, thai he was
not an officer of the District OF Columbia
within the intent and meaning Of the act
OF Congress OF February /, 1873, ana that
the fines collected by him did not come
into his possession by virtue Of his en-
plOument as a private Of the Metropolitan
police, and that the fines collected by
him were not the property OF the DIS
trict, but, in Lis hands, were in the Gus
tody of the law. He said:
The first question presented by that
motiCu is whether the defendant. being
prirace Of the metropolitan Police force,
was an officer of the District Of Columbia.
The statute under which he is indicted so
far as it is material TO this case, provides
that II any officer, clerk, agent, or en-.
ploye in the service Of the District Of Co
lumhia shall embezzle or wrong
fully convert 10 his own use dny
money belonging to said District
which shall come into his possession, CT
under his care, by virtue OF such office
clerksltip, agency, or employment, he shill
upon Conviction thereof, be punished by a
fine not exceeding 5000, or by imprisan
ment not exceeding five years, or both
20 Stat 22, sec L.
The District of Colombia was consti
tuted a municipal corporation by act o.
Congress Of February 81, 1871. TIL,
board OF police was not abolished unit
June II, 1873, and then the powers ol
the board Were conferred upon the Com
missioners OF the District Of Columbia
II could not be reasonably claimed tina
prior to 1879 an officer or private OF tn
metropolitan police WAS an officer OF tn,