The Washington times., 1903-06-29
JUSTICE FAYORS
THE FIRE CHIEF
HOrrigan Loses His Suit
Against Sullivan.
CHARGES OF BRIBERY FAIL
Commissioners May Now Take Up Mat
ter of Alleged Payments for
Promotion.

Justice of the Peace II. E. Paine. OF
the Georgetown district, this morning
handed down his decision in the case
of John J. Horrigan, of the stone con
tracing firm of Chauncey & Horrigan,
against Andrew J. Sullivan. second as
sistant chief of the local fire depart
ment. The decision was in favor OF the
defendant. and the plaintiff was or
dered TO pay all costs.
The suit was instituted by Horrigar
to recover money alleged to have been
spent by him for the advancement OF
Sullivan to the position of chief en-
gineer of the Fire Department. made
vacant by the retirement OF Chief Dut.
ton The truth of the charge has beer
stoutly denied by Sullivan, who claims
to have obtained the position on his
own merits.
The District Commissioners. to whose
notice the matter was brought. partly
by Horrigan's action. and in other ways
deferred action until Justice Of the
Peace Paine had rendered his decision.
The evidence of the case was heard
Monday. June Is. and one week later
the arguments were made by the coun-
sci, which occupied the days. since which
time the decision Of the court has been
awaited with considerable interest.
Sensational Evidence.
The plaintiff asserted that the $50 haC
been advanced at thc scuest of Sulli-
van. which had been ,@yended for his
benefit. though no evidence beyond that
OF the plaintiff was advanced to prove
this.
The counsel for the defense admitted
that while the transaction to secure the
promotion for Sullivan was in itself
illegal. the $50 was expended on a dis
tinct contract. and. therefore, legal and
binding.
The check introduced in evidence was
made out by Horrigan to James A.
Duffy, a clerk in saloon. Duffy in
dorsed the check and turned it over to
T. \. Garrett, who is said to be private
secretary Of Senator Morgan of Ala
bama.
Blackmail Alleged.
The defense claimed the whole trans
action was a conspiracy and a pure case
OF blackmail, and scored the plaintiff in
unmeasured terms. showing that Hor-
rigan. who was a friend of Sullivan.
approached him on his own accord and
offered to help him procure the place
Sullivan, believing this 10 be a case OF
pure friendship. was naturally willing,
but when the question of money was
broaehed II Is said he fatty refused 10
have anything further to do with the
matter.
When Horrigan went on the stand be
averred that he paid Attorney T. J. Gar
rett the sum Of $50 for ascertaining
whether or not the appointment which
Mr.. Sullivan now holds had been prom
ised to anyone else. He added that
after he obtained that information, the
defendant. Mr.. Sullivan, informed him
cents for the appointment.
Sullivan's Denial.
Later an agreement was made, Hcrri-
gan alleges, and Sullivan, according TO
the plaintiffs testimony. agreed to pay
$3.50 in addition to the $50 which Mr.
Garrett received for finding out that the
position had not been promised to any
other man.
The defendant, when he took the stand,
explained that he had known Horrigan
all his life. Horrigan. he says. called
on him at the truck house and inform
ed him of a change to be made in the
office of the chief engineer.
"Horrigan said TO me that he thought
was entitled to the place, and that
he had friends. naming a Mr. Duffy. who
could put me in the place. I was in
troduced to Mr.. Duffy and the latter
advised me TO accompany him to the
Capitol. There be introduced me to Gar
rett. who said he thought there would
be no trouble in my getting the position.
Lost Both Ways.
THE next day Horrigan came to the
truck house and said 1 saw those people
last night and they want $780, / told
him / did not have the money. and
wouldn't put it up If had It. He thea
volunteered to put the money up for me
and ! told him ne would be foolish II he
did."
The plaintiff testified that Sullivan
agreed to pay $3.50.
Il was to pay the money, and the de-
fendant was TO reimburse" said Horri-
gan.
II this statement is true the plaintiff
Is himself involved in an unlawful
Office brokerage transaction. and is not
permitted by the law TO recover from the
defendant the sum OF $50.
II II is not true. no valuable consider
alton. lawful or unlawful, Is shown for
the defendants alleged implied promise
to reimburse the plaintin for the $50
Further Action.
reporter for The Times asked Attor-
ney Frank J. Wissner this morning IL he
intended TO take any further steps in the
case so far as criminal action was con-
cerned. He was unprepared to answer.
and stated that rubFIo Chg-s