Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-07-17

plainant. and Attorney o'Neill, who had refrained from cross-examining the witnesses, moved that the charges should be dismissed.
 MT Durant has brought these charges for personal reasons and feel tngs. 1t has been common law for. hundreds of years that it Is the fathers duty to keep and support the child, and also his privilege to stipulate where it shall be kept. The statutes of this state have been so changed within the last few years that the father and the mother have equal rights so far as children are concerned. Is it a viola ton of an officers duty, when called on to Quell breach of the peace, if he says what he thinks is right? 1 might say here that MT Durant had no right to say that my client was 'bull-head,' as he is reported to have told a news paper reporter. It was a breach of the etiquette of his oftice.'
 MT Durant: q wish you would de- fend Halpin instead of prosecuting me- -..
 Attorney O'NeiIl continued by asking how MT Durant had made the mistake of saying that the wife had the sole right to the child. He would like to know if 1t were violation of duty when an officer decides according to his own judgment, says what he thinks is right If so, every policeman would be up fourteen times day, He didn't think that the prosecutor knew the law when he gave the advice to Mrs Delkescamp, and, anyway, he is not the judge as to who should have the GUS tody of child. A court should decide, that. Attorney O'Neill quoted law and several cases to show that the father has as much right to the child as the mother.
 Attorney Durant spoke in part as fol- lows:
 Tt seems hardly necessary to say that there is nothing personal in this action. If any believe it let them con- sider the fact that am at present at toFney for Officer Halpin myself in civil matter, brt feel obliged to pre- fer these charges because it has come to my knowledge that he is one of sev eral officers who are not only neglect ing their duty, but exceeding their au- thority Halpin and his defenders would make light of entering the home of a priEate citizen and by his brutal manner and unlawful conduct illegally force a woman to part with her baby. Pm not here because am piqued. He is one of very few officers who are responsible for criticisms of the police departm ent. There has been too much criticism of the department. It has been raked over and criticized unmerci- fully and shamefully. There are two classes of officers responsible for this, those who neglect to do their duty and those who exceed their authority Hal pin belongs to the latter class" The prosecutor made few remarks of an unimportant nature.
 Tbe motion to dismiss the charges was not granted. 'fA @-
 Officer Halpin then went on the stand Told about being called into the house,of telling Delkeseampto leave and of the quarrel over the child, He did not tell Delkescamp that he could take the child, but Mrs Delkes- camp said he could take 1t for he would be back in the morning cringing to have her take the child back. He told the circumstances of the case to Captain Ramon, who said that he would have acted the same as Halpin. Captain Ramon went on the stand, but denied that Officer Halpin had told him any thing about the child in connection with the case.
 Eaaomas Walsh said that directly after the affair he saw the officer. The latter said that he had no right to inter- fere, as 1t was civil case.
 The case was then closed and dscis- ion was reserved until tonight, as one of the commissioners had to go away on business.