Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-05-05
HEARING ON THE MANSFIELD CASE.
The Peasyunt Charges Were Aired Egan. the First Witness, Gave Mansfield Good Recon. mendatiOn..-BuIk of Testimony was Given by Strike Breakers, and on Line of That
 Given by Them in City Court.


 Policeman Michael Mansfield were heard at a special meeting of the board of public safety held yesterday afternoon and evening. Briefly, Mans deld was charged with neglect of duty, annoying the crews on the trolley cars, holding up cars, openly sympath1zing with the strikers, refusing to make arrests when requested, winked at stone throwing and lastly, with wear Ing the wrong number on his helmet In order to deceive the public. Con- l missioner Lahey presided and full board was present. The public attend ance was not large in the afternoon, but was at the evening session.
 Chief Egan was the first witness. He testified merely that Mansfield was on beat on South Main street from Clay street to City corners between February 16 and April 2; that his first number was 56 but when the board ordered the supernumeraries to be uniformed Mansfield was ordered ] to change his number to g The chief I did not know Mansfield had not com piled with the order until after the I charges had been brought against S him. He thought Mansfield had made three arrests during the period speci- fied, one for intoxication, on war rant, and he could not recall the third. Mansfield reported at the station that car windows were broken at the Buckle factory.
 The chief was asked by Judge Peas ley if he had received information re- garding violence on Mansfield's beat other than Mansfield had reported. This question was objected to on the grounds that it was evident from the testimony Mansfield had acted on the information he was given and the con- duct he witnessed.
 ! The question was claimed on the grounds that Mansfield was responsi- ble for every act of violence that took place on his beat. The matter was not pressed and the witness resuming said the conditions on the beat in question were the same as they were elsewhere at that time. People coming out of the shops at noon and evening and during the noon hour took advantage of the great throngs and threw stones 4t the cars and broke windows. Fac
 ytory officials were aware of this and at one factory the employees were al- lowed out fifteen minutes before the
 regular time. Previous to the strike Mansfield did no duty that the chief could recall, but since that time he has been on almost all of the time. The chief considered Mansfield competent and faithful officer; that such was apparent because he kept him on duty N all the time. As to one policeman be- ing capable of controlling the crowds at the. factories on Mansfeld's beat he did not consider one sufficient. He re- ceived no complaint against the officer during all the strike. As to the num- Der on his helmet witness did not think it was done to deceive anyone. It was probably mere oversight Since the matter was called to his at tantion he put on the right number. When spoken to about it by the chief Mansfield said he had forgotten all about the order to change 1t. Tn the chiefs opinion, Mansfield in the dis charge of his duty is courteous and gentlemanly. Tn response to Judge Peas ley, under redirect examination the
 chief said he could not surmise what Mansfield could have in wearing the wrong number on his helmet.
 Alfred N Hollworth, a motorman, was the next witness. He said he knew the accused. About February 20 Mansfield stopped his car and asked him why he did not ring his gong Two passengers on the car said the
 gong was rung. An obstruction was
 on the track near Washington street about March IA. The obstruction was n truck and the driver evidently did
 not hurry about getting out of the way. Mansfield did not assist in clearing the way, but told witness to ring his gong. The cause of the wagons delay was because it had broken down. MT O'Neill objected to the allegation because it did not state what the obstruction was but left the impression it was dynamite or some thing like it.
 A similar incident took place on March 2, but as it was not in the charges, it was struck out The wit ness then told of two men evidently under tho Influence of dri tx refusing to get off the track, calling witness names and threw stones at the car. Witness wanted Mansfield to arrest the men but he refused to do so because he did not see them do anything out of the way. On this occasion, accord ing to witness Mansfield used strong language. Mansfield said he knew one
 of the men, Stephen Pha1en From February 16 to last Friday witness said he had been subjected to great abuse by noisy crowds, and Mansfield refused
 flo do anything about it. This was a X daily and nightly occurrence, he said,
 until Mansfield was put on another beat. "A couple of times'' Mansfield stopped his car.
 Under ross-examination witness said he could give no particular date when he was called "scab," "scabby'' and other names; that it was a daily occurrence night as well as day.
 MT O'Neiil tried to get witness to name any special day on which he
 was called names when Mansfield was present. Witness said February IT, but immediately after he said he could not name any special date. The alle- Eation on this point said Mansfield 1oked and laughed with the crowd and refused to arrest persons while they were abusing and throwing stones at witness. Witness said this was all true, but at first he could not say al