Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-07-17
CHARGES AGAINST HALPlN
Attorneys Had Tilt and Board Re-
 served Its Decision.

A special meeting of the board of public safety was held last night to bear the charges preferred against Po- lice Officer Halpin by Prosecuting Attorney Durant, who claimed that the officer had exceeded his authority in interfering in the dispute of MT and Mrs Christian Delkescamp over the possession of their 4-year-old child, on the night of June 30, 1903. As has al ready been published in these col. umns, Officer Halpin was called upon that night to go to the home of Mrs Delkescamp's parents to quel a dis turbance, or rather to put their unwel- come son-in-law out of the house, When the officer arrived Delkescamp said that he would get out, but would take the child. His wife and her par ents demonstrated, saying that the child belonged to the mother. Here they claim that Officer Halpin inter- fered and ruled against them, said that Delkescamp had the right to the chlldr notwiths hstanding what Prosecuting AL torney Durant sad said, for Harry didn't know everything" Harry there upon preferred charges.
 Commissioner Lahey presided at the meeting. Commissioners Beach and Hardie were also present. As expected the hearing proved rather lively and was enlivened with several interesting set-tos between the opposing counsel, Attorneys Durant and John ,O'Neill, who did not hesitate to pass pointed re- marks as to the knowledge and opin- ions of each other. The hearing, there Gore. did not prove dull to the many spectators.
 Attorney 0'Nei1l sprung a surprise upon the beard when he at once asked that, the board should set a date for the defendant to bring in witnesses and that the board should issue subpoenas. The board was somewhat startled at this evident move for postponement, and so was the prosecuting attorney. The latter replied that such a request was rather peculiar and the charges should be heard Attorney O'Neill in reply to a question said that he had not tried to secure any witnesses. He wouldn't ask them, They could refuse him; but the board should issue sub- poenas for them, and the charter pro- vided that they should.
 Commissioner Lahey: "Tn previous cases witnesses have not been sum- moned."
 Attorney o'Neill: "of course not, I had to pay for them out of my own pocket" I
 Commissioner Lahey: t'That Is not the boards fault. The board creates no expense. It is bound to hear charges preferred against police off, cer."
 Mir Beach: ''This is the first time that anything like this has happened"
 Mir Hardie: 'NThe board has the right to subpoena witnesses, but it is not compelled to-"
 MT Durant: T would like to know if the officer has asked any witnesses to come''
 MT O'Neill: 'why do you want to know? What is, it of your business? ?"
 MT Durant: ooh. Of course not"
 MT Beach: sT would like to know why the officer has not asked wit nesses."
 Officer Ha1pin: "By my attorneys advice"
 MT Beach: ''The hearing of the case was set for tonight"
 Mr 0'Neill: 'rNot tonight It was only to answer the charges, and ths officer answered them. He said Not guilty"
 Mr Iahey: 'In the opinion of the board the hearing was set for tonight"
 On motion of Cornmf fssioner Beach, seconded by Commissioners Harlie, the board voted to proceed with the hear ing.
 The witnesses for the prosecution were Mrs Delkeseamp and her parents, Mir and Mrs George H. Ross. Their testimony gave the impression that there had been little coaching on the edA ho ofr oF hn officer. he was cross and ugly. To cer- thin questions of the utmost importance in the case their answers were worded in almost the same identical manner.
 The substance of MT Ross's testimony was as follows:
 On the night of June 30, George Fl. Ross arrived at his home, COP South Main street, about 8:30. The house was fin an uproar Chris Delkescamp was raising rim. Mr Ross went out for an officer and seeing Officer HaIpip near by, shouted for him. Mir Ross said: "Here, officer. I want you," The officer replied that that was no way to address an officer The officer went up stairs with him, Delkeseamp said that he would get out, but would take the child Mrs Ross objected. The officer asked him if he had been di- vorced or separated from his wife. A negative reply was given. Until the court decrees otherwise you can take the child, the officer said. The childs mother then appeared on the scene from an adjoining room and said that her husband could not take the child, as she had seen Prosecuting Attorney Durant and he told her that he could not Well" remarked the officer. Harry doesn't know it all"
 Did you say anything more?' was asked of Mir Ross by the prosecutor.
 "No," replied MT Ross; ''I was afraid Of him. saw that he was an ignorant man.''
 The above testimony was practically corroborated by Mrs Delkescamp, who said that she did not live with her hus- band since January 1, because she did not think it was safe. On the night Of June 30 her husband had what she would call a "crazy streak" because