The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-23
AFFAIRS OF THE DISTRICT
A Citizen Complains of Ill Treat
memt in the Police Court.
The Alleged Rude Conduct of the
Clerk Toward Witncss-Adverse
Report on Remission of Tax Pen
aIty-District Day mt Buffalo.

Rufus w. Pearson, OF 62S | Street north
west. has forwarded a complaint to the
Commissioners of the manner in which
he was treated when summoned to the
Police Court as a witness. He declares
that he was both insulted and Inundated
by the officials of the court.
'0n the 18th instant" he states. Il re-
ported street fight in front OF my resi-
6cncc to the Chief of Police. l received
Il courteous reply in which it was stated
that the parties would be apprehended
and brought to trial. On the 18th instant
J was summoned as witness to appear
against the parties. The man was not
tried, but the clerk of the court told me
very rudely that he had forfeited his de-
post. The woman was called and was
fined S. In her testimony she admitted
that she had been living with the man in
the alley back of my residence, and that
she was not his wife. 1t was the condi-
tions existing in the alley that l had re
ported to the Chief of Police, and nothing
seems to have been done in the matter
further than arresting the offenders turn
ing one loose, filming the other S. and
suppose they will live together again and
fight as usual back of my residence.
Il certainly do not want to appear again
in the Police Court, for | was Inundated
and insulted at every turn, and left the
courtroom feeling that 1 was not better
than common vag.' | know that
citizen is supposed to be treated civilly and
with some consideration by court of
any kind, and if this matter were fully
investigated you would not have to throw
my plea for justice in the waste basket"
1t is understood that the complaint of
Mr. Pearson will be referred to the Police
Department for investigation and report.
j. f. Douglas. representing Mrs Mary
S. Murphy, has requested of the Com
missioners the remission of penalties on
the tax for the year 1884, against lot /.
block 46, Holmeads subdivision, which
was then in the name of David c. Dudley.
The Assessor, in his report upon the
matter states that David c. Dudley
called at the office of the Collector of
Taxes in June, 1881 and asked for d state
ment of all taxes then due, and in re-
Spouse was given bills for 1886 and 1887,
which he paid and supposed it to be the
full statement of every outstanding
charge. Continuing, the Assessor says:
1T is presumed that applicant has ref
erence to the office of Assessor when he
states he called for bills at the Collectors
office, but this office cannot admit, in the
absence of evidence, the negligence and
unbusiness-like methods charged. for il is
frequently the case that batch of bills
are deliF cred to persons applying for
same, and one or two are omitted in the
payment. While it may not be so in this
case, there is nothing presented to con-
trovert this theory.
The act OF May 49, 1892 provides protec-
ton to innocent purchasers by certified
statement as to taxes. and Mr.. Douglas,
as agent for Mrs. Murphy, failed to avail
himself of this safeguard.
In this case the facts do not appear to
sanction the allegation of negligence on
the part of the officials. and ! am there
fore constrained to recommend adverse
action"