The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-07-23
crime ALLEGED IN DOCK CASE.
Specific en- tRGE AGAINST
Old HOARD, SAYS JEROME.
Argument on the Proposed Prohibition or
John Doe Proceeding which. Lawyer
kellogg says, Is Illegally Carried On
-. +. Murphy May Seek Writ.

Whether ornot District Attorney Jerome's
,John Doe" investigation into the old
s-,rrhy- lI.yer-Cram Dock Board con-
,,nues depends now upon the decision
.,hich Supreme Court Justice BischofS
Ewes as a result of the argument before him
Sosterdav by Mr. Jerome and l.. Latin
Kellopr, on the order obtained by John
EIeminp Of the contracting firm of Brown
\ Fleming directing the District Attorney
- show cause why the further examination
If Mr. Fleming should not be prohibited
Although Charles +. Murphy's attorneys
nuhlicIy stated on Tuesday that they had
no interest in the proceedings initiated by
Mr. Fleming, Mr. Murphy was represented
nj the argument yesterday by Peter r.
pendrick. who at the conclusion OF the argu-
,,nt notified the Court that Mr.. Murphy
could probably in the near future bring
= similar action before him or some other
Justice of the court.
Mr.. Kellogg opened the argument by
stating that the John Doe" proceedings
we're being carried on in an illegal manner
under "the alleged provisions OF certain
.,at,,tr." When Mr.. Fleming responded
to n subpoena to testify in an action against
Mossrs Murphy, Meyer and Cram, said
Mr. Kellogg, he expressed his entire willing
ness TO testify. but asked to be allowed to
have counsel present. This was not per-
uitted. but counsel was allowed to sit in an
adjoining room. where Mr. Fleming was
normltted to consult him from time to time
The examination lasted two hours. said
Mr. Kellogg, and covered every conceivable
rbect. much of it being entirely irrelevant
and pertaining to transactions in which
the members of the Dock Board were rot
Concerned.
Nir Kellogg said that there was o specific
crime before Justice Mayer and no evidence
Of a crime, and that among the many ques-
tons asked his client were number about
dealings Of outside persons, among them
Under Sheriff Mulvaney and Mary A. Del
uorr, with the firm Of Brown 4 Fleming.
As a matter of fact" said Mr.. Kellogg,
Stho whole proceeding was of the dragnet
order and brought for the purpose Of Sc
curing evidence for some prosecution OF
other persons for some uncertain crime.
II was straining the statute to call witnesses
and question them on matters other than
those alleged in the information and to go
into their private affairs"
Mr.. Kellogg admitted in response to
question from the Court that there was a
provision in the code of criminal procedure
authorizing the examination Of witness
as to an alleged crime prior to the issue
OF warrant for the persons accused. There
were limitations to this right, however,
and the examination Of witness must be
confined to the designated crime. The
District Attorney had submitted no affi-
davit specifying particular crime and the
date of its commitment.
Mr.. Jerome interrupted TO say that on
the motion he would submit such an affi-
davit. Mr. Kellogg said he was entitled
10 know at once what that crime was. Until
he did know. he said, his client could not
legally be questioned about il.
Il further contend said Mr.. Kellogg
-that the viciousness of this proceeding
lies in the fact that the District Attorneys
jurisdiction commences only after a warrant
has been issued, and yet here he is present
before Magistrate. using that Magistrate
rs a sort of Grand Jury, before whom
he may ask sweeping questions on any
subject he pleases. Under the statute he
has no right TO be present.
The jurisdiction of the Magistrate
said Mr.. Jerome as well established. Mr..
Fleming, layman, in his affidavit, infers
that from the general nature OF things and
the nature of the questions put to him
there was no information in the case The
fact is that on June 10, criminal action
was begun against Charles F. Murphy,
Peter +. Meyer and j. Sergeant Cram.
This information was laid before Justice
Meyer and il is in writing and describes
the nature Of the crime. its date and that
it was committed within the time pre-
scrhed by the statute of limitations. Mr..
Fleming's examination, under the cir
nftl " |
think ii is a precedent to yield TO that
Ntuess can come into court and ask that
his examination be ended because he does
not wish to answer. Mr.. Fleming, by the
way, answered questions Voluntarily
He did not; said Mr. Kellogg He
vas subpPnaed,
He dtdnt refuse to answer" said Mr.
Jerum"
He didn't want 10 go to Jail"
We'll. not for awhile, hope said Mr.
jerome
NJ. Jerome said that Mr.. Fleming could
hnye refused 70 answer any question. have
boon arrested and have had his case decided
on wri,s Of habeas corpus and certicrari
as H. tho l4ewisOhn case.
Justice Bischof asked Mr.. Jerome il
he had considered whether his form OF
examination in the John Doe" proceeding
might not J." Gsurring the functions, Of
tho Crrrd jury. Mr. Jerome sid he had
tud that he had leen upheld hy the General
Term
The only question here. ssid Mr. jerome. ,
zig Whether we must disclose the contents |
Of orr information. We say We should !
mot J." compelled to. If Mr.. Fleming de- /
sDes to u Use the question, lot him do 40 |
Iv refusing 10 answer questions. But L |
decidedly object to disclosing the n:or- /
nation hrcG,se of the interference OF tll"
aynLn under examination in this case
and very stupid IaNm he is J may |