The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-26
MAGISTRATE W%ANTSAHEARING
VAHLE SAYS HE SENT NO RE.
QUEST TO THE GRAND JURY
But Is Here where He Can he summoned at
Any Time Grand Jury Examines
b. Three Lawyers and Julius Hansen
-Snltkin's Version OF Larceny Ease.

b. Three Lawyers and Julius Hansen
-SnIttln's version OF Larceny Ease.
Magistrate Charles q. F. wahle, presi-
dent Of the Board Of City Magistrates, was
asked Yesterday II a published report was
true that he had requested the Grand Jury
before taking any action in the investiga-
ton that it is making into alleged corrup-
ton in the police courts to give him an
opportuuity TO be heard. He said:
NO request has been made by me or for
me or by any one representing me that /
should be permitted to appear before the
Grand Jury. | am holding court daily in
the city Of New York. II my presence is
desired before the Grand Jury it will be
perfectly easy TO find me. l have nothing
further to say"
Magistrate Wahle was told that the name
81 William Rand. Jr., who il was said had
been retained by one Of the Magistrates
under investigation by the Grand Jury,
had been mentioned in connection with
the ulmor. Mr.. Rand visited the District
Attorneys office yesterday. Magistrate
Wahle said:
Il rave been in communication with
Mr.. Rand this afternoon and he denies
that he made any such request
II liz understood that one Of the Magis-
tratee, however, made what is considered
n be a request to be heard. limitations
were made that II the Grand jury was
likely 10 bring in an Indictment or to make
n presentment the Magistrate concerned
would like to be heard before any such
action was taken, az a mere matter Of fair
ness. The intimation was also made that
while the Magistrate in question had no
Information to offer regarding the present
Investigation he was willing to answer
any questions regarding any testimony
that had already been brought out.
Whether any Magistrate will he called
before the Grand Jury will probably not be
settled until Monday. The Grand jury
will sit to-day, although IL had planned a
recess, but the Magistrates investigation
will 60 over to Monday. because it was ex-
pected when yesterday session ended that
there would be no meeting in the Grand
Jury room to-day. The jurors had ex-
pected to go on an inspection tour OF the
city institutions. The Grand Jury heard
four witnesses yesterday in its in vestiga-
ton. They were Lawyers Daniel o Reilly,
leonard A. Snitkin and Mark Alter and
julius Hanser.
Mr.. O'Reilly remained before the Grand
Jury only about five minutes and, it was said
shed no nRDJ. MT, NDIkn was unueI eN-
animation for a long time. He represented
the defendants in the Morgan line robbery
case, in which Abraham Davis, an en-
ployee Of the firm Of Smerling Il Borowitz of
i9 Canal street, was accused ~ receiving
stolen goods. II was reported that his dis
charge cost 81 900. Mr.. Snitkin said that
he had received $3.50 as bis fee in that case.
He asserted that his client Davis was inno-
rent and that he was discharged in cQu't
because there was no evidence on which to
hold him.
Mr. Snitkin admitted that he had hnd
financial transactions with one Of the Board
Of Magistrates. but declared that they
all occurred before the Magistrate had been,
appointed to his present office. He de-
clared that ne had no knowledge of any
corrupt practices in the police courts.
Julius Hansen IL the maj who was ar
raigned in the Harlem police court on Tues
day charged with getting $50 from a drug
gist by promising to obtain a post Office
station for his store. The case was dis =
missed, the prosecution having been with;
drawn. Magistrate Wahle had refused
to hear the case on the ground that Hansen
was a former client. Hansen testified
yesterday that he had knowledge of two
notes for 81 900 each that had been negotiated
by one Of the Magistrates. and that he had
taken part in some Of the negotiations.
He said that be UNDERWOOD that one Of the
notes had been protested. but subsequently
had been paid. He thought that the second
note had been paid.
Mr.. Alter was recalled to give further
testimony regarding money loans to. a
Magistrate by lawyers who were practising
before him constantly.
A case that has attracted some attention
In the District Attorneys Office this week Is
one that was practically taken away from
Magistrate Sweetser's jurisdiction by the
Gerry Society. IL was that OF Edward NJ.
Brooks. an actor Of Baltimore. who was
arrested on October IS on the charge OF
abducting Dorothy Render. a fifteen-year-
old girl, from her home in Manchester, n. H.
Brooks was known as Cheyenne Harry"
II was charged that he had met the Render
girl while in Manchester n that as a result
Of their correspondence after he left, he
Induced her to join him in this city.
Brooks was taken before Magistrate
Sweetser in the Harlem Court, and his
S Sr%ySsF' and nHdTrS q lawyer IA; SToG named 3 s Ssin%SfS
represented him. Agent Fogarty OF the
Gerry society made the affidavit in the
case. When il came before the Magistrate
the latter said:
This is the case from New Hampshire,
isn't it,"
Then the Magistrate said he thought
marriage would be a good disposition to
make of the matter, provided the. girls
mother would consent. Fogarty said Sup.
Jenkins had had letters from the girls
mother saying she wouldn't consent to
marriage and asking that Brooks be prose-
cuted. Magistrate Sweetser then said:s
Women sometimes change their minds
you know
Brooks had been held in $1,000 bail.
Brooks's attorney asked that 1t be reduced
TO $500, which the Magistrate acceded to.
Brooks succeeded in getting a bondsman..
Supt. jenkins of the society then called
the District Attorneys attention to the
case, and Assistant District Attorney Per-
kins took it before the Grand Jury. An
indictment was found at once, and Brooks
was rearrested on Tuesday night and
held in 81 500 bail.