Evening star., 1897-12-03
Justice Bradley Grants Motion in Ar
rest Of Judgment.
DEFENDANT RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
Local Policemen Are Not Deemed.
Municipal Officers.
L f AT OF THE DECISION

al Sriminel Court No. 2, last
month OF the embezLlement OF fines ooI-
,ee.eo Dy MIN Tor the District Of Coluu,5ia
VII we fo'ce Court, Is again a free man.
'uese bradley having this morning grant-
ed the motion In arrest of tudsment filed ibv
attorneys Tracy L. Jefords and r. Newton
Donaldson. the defendants counsel In
granting the motion and discbsry,nu v,,.
iams from custody. Judge Bradley held that
the ex-policeman was not a. tho ,nd,o,-
ment charged. such an officer or apent os
the District Of Columbia Gs is contemnla1.d
py the statute relating to the ofren.e n,
endorsement. under which statute WILL
'Ans was Indicted and convicted.
Bowed His Thanks.
Williams, who had been confined In 1aiI
s'ice MS conviction, bowed his thanks
"hen Judge Bradley ordered his release.
Ahu quickly left the court room with his
attorneys.
"helher ne VIII be reiEdicted cannot vet
be determined District Attorrev Da,,.
VIII, however. examine into the mater
ana, IL new indictment is possible will
secure one. The preseatment on which
Wnlains was convicted was returned while
MI DaVis predecessor was in office.
The Judges Opinion.
Ihe decision of Judge Bradley, which
iuiiy states the case was as follows:
IN the case Of the United States ACT.
Dahiei Williams. the motions which have
reen hled, raising, ss they did, important
questions, have necessitated some con.id-
erable examination Of the statutes AND sp-
'hoFiues on the part OF the court and
so;ne delay in reaching a Conclusion. owing
to the consideration of the character OF the
ouense as developed by the testimony its
sIaNity ana tne Importance to the public of
the outcome Of this motion. as well as the
Importance to the defendant OF i:s outcome
The Indictment contains seven counts.
eacn count covering distinct offense of
empezzlement 1t charges that the defend
ant az the times of the several acts was
en- oihcer In the service OF the District of
Columbia, a body corporate for municipal
purposes, to wit, private of the police
Iorce or the metropolitan police district of
me District OF Columbia that he was as
signed by the major of police TO duty at
the Police Court, to collect fines by IL i'm
posed for violations of municipal laws, or
dinances and regulations: that the moneys
embezzled came into his hands by virtue OF
his employment. and were moneys belong
Ing to the District of Columbia
Grounds for Motion.
THE jury returned a verdict Of guilty on
the third count and not guilty on the
others. A motion for new trial and a mo-
ton in arrest OF judgment were filled, and
cipal ground urged In support OF the mo-
ton for new trial was that IT appeared by
the evidence that the defendant, on the
22d day Of August. 1896. paid over to the
District OF Columbia a sum OF money on
account OF fines collected between June 1
and June Is. 1896. the period covered by
the third count, that was much in excess
Of the amount OF fines actually received
during that period. and that therefore
there was no embezzlement of those
moneys.
THE testimony showed that prior to the
year 1895 it had been the custom OF the
defendant to turn over to the District OF
Columbia moneys collected by him for
fines and penalties semi-monthly: that this
custom was departed from in that year,
and that instead Of accounting for and
paying over to the District at the end OF
each half month the collections made for
that period. there were delays Of greater
or less extent, and that for the first half
of June the delay was until August -. The
testimony Of the defendants confessions.
made after his arrest, was to the effect
that during this period, and for some time
pI pIevious, ne had been using the moneys COL
lected, or some part OF them, for his own pur-
pose ard to such an extent that his defaIca-
ton would exceed the sum Of $1,000. 1t ap-
peared by the evidence that the money
paid over to the District on August ~ was
collected during that month. 1t was there
fore. clear tnat, while he appropriated il to
the account of June 1 to Is, II should have
that the collections of June to Is were
wrongfully converted to his own use. The
jury rendered proper verdict upon the
third count, for the fact, if such it were,
that he had settled that account and had
paid over the full amount Of a previous
embezzlement, would not affect the ques-
tion of lis guilt.
Not an Omcer.
"Oeher grounds of this motion are that
the defendant was not an officer of the
District of Columbia within the intent and
meaning OF the act Of Congress of Febru-
ary 4. 1878; that the fines collected by de-
fendant did not come into his possession by
virtue of his employment as a private Of
the metropolitan police. and that the fines
collected by HIM were not the property Of
the District, but in his hands were in the
custody of the law.
THE first CT these is also one of the
groukds Of the motion In arrest OF judg-
ment. and the others. being questions af-
fecting the sufiiciency Of the description of
the offense contained In the Indictment.
properly belong to the consideration of that
motion.
The first question presented by that
motion is whether the defendant. being q
private OF the metropolitan police force.
TIE statute W der which ne q indicted, SO
far ais 1t IL material to this case. provides
tn&t If any oiiicer, clerk agent. or en-
plcye in the service Of the District OF Co
fully convert to his own use - and
money belonging to said District
which shall come into his possession, or,
under his care, by virtue of such off1ce,
agency or employment, he shall,
upon conviction thereof be punished by
fine not exceeding 5000. or by mprison-
ment not exceeding hve years. or both
20 Stat. q, sec l."
The opinion continues, with an account
OF the organization and history OF the po-
iicc force, with an abstract OF the law gov
erning said force.
Continuing. Judge Bradley SAID:
''The District Of Columbia was consti-
tuted a municipal corporation by act Of
Congress of February q. 1871. The board
of police was not abolished until June IL,
1873 and then the powers Of the board were
conferred upon the Commissioners OF the
District Of Columbia. II could not be reason
ably claimed that prior to 1873 an on1cer or
private OF the metropolitan police was an
officer of the municipal corporation Of
or Georgetown, or OF their
successor. the District OF Columbia. They
were appointed and controlled BY the board
Of police. body iptr,sted by Congress
With specific powern. and entirely indepon-
dent Of any municipality. They were on.
GERS OF the metropolitan police forcA The