New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-29
WANTS BAKER REMOVED.
MORTON GODDARD ACTS.
Magistrate Incompetent, He Says,
as Sh0rcn by Policy Cases.

,o,ptair r. Norton Goddard has served rapers
A. a suft IL the Appellate Division 10 have Mag
,..-,.. seward Baker removed, alleging that the
.,srtytrate did 'wrongfully and fraudulenty
.solsts the obligations" of his oath Of Office, and
h,s -bscorne Incompetent 10 discharge the duties
- CITY Magistrate" The papers were served on
sf.sistrste Baker last night.
seven men were indicted and convicted of
.o,,cv selling after they had been discharged
X Magistrate Baker. IN the Harlem court. or
-b.ss seven six pleaded guilty. In another oase
,fagstrate Baker refused 20 hear the complaint
IN. evidence given by Captain Goddard con-
,ist, os eight cases. four of them brought before
"a. magistrate by the Anti Police Society and
s,,,- nv the Police Department. known as Ex-
.gblts and b. respectively. The first case
n-oueht 10 the notice OF the society the
,--est of John Fitzmeyer, Second-ave. and
rsrhty-fourth-st. who had no witnesses IN his
ssfenoe Policy slips and plays we're produced
~ the police and Superintendent Burke q the
.ooiety. and other testimony given against the
nan. Baker discharged Fitzmeyer, who was
.,,.-vard indicted by the grand jury. He was
arrested September 20, 1903. Between that date
ard January 2s OF this year seven other ar
.ssts we're made, the defendant in each case be-
snr discharged by Magistrate Baker When
rs,ry Ennis of No 1000 First-ave., was ar
,ested on January 10. 1904. charged with having
-oirv slips Superintendent Burke Philip F.
Brsy ard Detectives Gilbert and EnriEht were
IN court 10 testify in the case. but the msgis-
,rate refused 10 entertain the complaint. At tho
.,-,s NJ his arrest Ennis was under a previous
indictment
In his charges Captain Goddard says:
During all the time between the discharge ~
said defendants by said Magistrate Baker and
the time when they were resTrested on indict-
rnents found by the said grand jury. said de-
fendants were at large IN the county Of New
York or elsewhere who were afterward con-
x5cred and sentenced as felons-
That the evidence submitted 20 said Baker
hv the prosecution on the hearing had before
rim vas similar to the evidence submitted 10
the grand jury. and was clear and convincing.
and that there vas no defence irterposed before
ssid Rsker so said evidence, and that in failing
- hold said defendants thus indicted the said
Baker failed 10 perform the duties of his Office
ana die vronEfglly. wilfUlly, unfairly. unlustly
and fraudulently discharge said defendants. ana
showed himself Incompetent 10 act as city
magistrate for the city ~ Nevy-YorN
That q large number Of defendants charged
with violation of the said so-Called Auti-Poirv
law. arrested by members of the Police De-
partuent u tho city OF New-YCrll. have like
wise been discharged by said Baker. - more
fully appears hy the affidavit Of James F. Dillon
superintendent Burke makes p similar state
r,ent IN his afhdavit swearing that IN the case
~ Thomas Henry. n One-hundred-and-siXth-
81 ard Taird-ave who was arrested on Decem-
her L. 1903. charged with having policy slips.
the defendant was represented by one james
oliver. who had represented the defendants in
most Of the other cases which were heard before
Magistrate Ralyer and that Baker sub
ppnsed by Oliver 10 testify on behalf Of Henry.
and that Baker and Henry were seen by him
Burke a. tnat time talking together al the
Criminal Courthouse. Henry was afterward
discharred on his own recognizance. Burke adds:
The acts az said Magistrate Baker. In dis
charging The defendants Aforesaid were un-
warranted and wisre rriage OF justice. ana
rhar deycrout was entitled 10 protection IN the
discharge or his duty a complaining witness
and otherwise ir appearing as the complainant
uf "a witness against said defendants. and was
r"rNad t0 have said Defendants held Tor the
grand jury.
Charles -. Banoy makes similar AFFIDAVIT
ra1ea~s'ur ll detail the cases that led ~ "a
The charges now made against Magistra te
Baker. 90 which is added the AFFIDAVIT OF Cap
tam James p. Dulon. of the Twenty-oighth Pre-
c~rt in which he swears that he has kept 2
record OF the cases brought before Baker. and
i1at in all the cases the deiendsnls were ois'
charged.
&asistrate Baker, seen later at the city uagiz
trates meeting. said
As 7 recoIIect the case Of the prisoner O4euryD
s. hn was discharged without a hearing. he had
been arrested because certain slips with type
written figures had been found IN his possession
superintendent Burke was the complainant and
with the detectives said that he thought then
80 ne policy slips. but Superintendent Burke ad
rnittec that II they had been found sons
other man not known TO be in the business they
would have meant nothing. I'm accordance Will
Section @4f or the Penal Code which provides
shat - must be sworn 10 that a lottery WAS Cd
io drawn, I could do nothing but discharge m,
prisoner. since Burke could not swear TO it
ndsr the provision Of Section 344 there coul.
lc no hearing since Burke was NOT positive
In other cases which were brought before m,
the county detectives and the officers OF the so
c.ety were able 10 swear that the sims were ur
nistakahly policy slips. and In these cases
ho'd the defendants.
recall one case where the detective was mild
II certain that the papers found on the prisone
were policy slips. but he could not read the fg
u~os and was willing shat the prisoner Doe DIS
charged.
7 have nothing to fear from this complaint
Tho papers are rctUruahle April =
Magistrate Pool told Mr.. Baker he needn'
worry. and the D after replied that he wouldn't
s
To n -