Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-06-15
Judge Kimballs Comment on Attor-
ney Duvall's Opinion.
TIE Filming OF POLICEMAN JOHNSON
Penalty Regarded as Being War
ranted by the Facts.
MAJOR SYLVESTER'S ACTION

Judge /. G. Kimball, who occupies the
bench in the District branch of the Police
Court. today addressed letter to the Dis
trict Commissioners regarding a case which
was recently disposed of in his court and to
which, it is alleged. exceptions have been
taken by Major Sylvester, superintendent
of police.
The communication is as follows:
Hon. John b. Wight president board of
Commissioners, District of Columbia.
Dear Sir: On the 9Th day of May, 1899,
upon an information filed ana prosecuted
by the assistant attorney for the District
of Columbia and in the ordinary course of
the business of the Police Court, l tried
Officer Johnson for cruelty to animals on
May ), and from the testimony of the six
witnesses produced on behalf of the Dis
trict and the one witness for the defend
ant was fully satisfied that the charge was
made out, and therefore imposed the PEN
atty which the case seemed to warrant,
which was at once paid. Nothing more
was heard by me with reference to this
case until on the 18th instant a reporter
called my attention to an article in the
Morning Times, which l had not seen, al
leging a great controversy between myself
and Major Sylvester about the case, and
anything. for L knew of no controversy with
Major Sylvester, for he had never spoken
to ME on the subject or l to him.
Suggestive of Wrong Inference.
From a report in The Star of yesterday,
quoting a decision of the attorney for the
District, wrong differences can be drawn
as to the actual facts in the case l tried,
and 1 am therefore reluctantly compelled
to make a statement of the true case and
to call your attention to the rather strange
position taken by the District. which, in
the first place, vigorously prosecutes one
of its own officers in the Police Court and
then objects to the act of the judge who,
when he believes the case charged is fully
made out, imposes the penalty. If the Dis
trtct does not want to prosecute one of Its
officers in the Police Court it has the rem
edy in its own hands, and cannot be COM
PEELED to file the charge, for no action can
be taken by the court until the attorney for
the District of Columbia files an infor-
nation and prosecutes the case before the
court.
1.-The case l tried was not the case upon
which the district attorney gave his opin-
ion- 1t did not occur between May 10 and
October Is but May 3. 1t was not the
case of Il mad dog one showing signs
of madness or one that had been bitten by
a. mad dog, and there was no suggestion
of madness by any one The case was that
the officer killed female dog which at
the time was in condition demanding it's
being shut up. in place of running at large
on the street. The evidence of several wit
nesses proved that the mode of killing was
very cruel and fer that l fined the officer
During the trial the claim was made by
the attorney for the officer that he was
justified by an old law in Wehb's Digest for
killing a dog in that condition, while the
claim was made by the attorney for the
District that that law was repealed. l did
not determine that question.
Il have never denied the right of an Off
Ger to kill dog where the slightest sus
picon of madness liability to madness
Is suggested. i believe 1t is his duty to kill
such a dog in any way possible. and will
sustain him for doing it, but the case l
tried was not such a case, and l am sur
prised that any one should so construe it.
Subject of Comment.
The imposition OF a fine by Judge KIM
ball upon the policeman named for alleged
cruelty to a dog, the officer having used
his club instead of his revolver in putting
the animal to death, has been the subject
q good deal of nllflic comment Ii