The star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1908-1909, 1908-02-11

80 ~
obliged to ia all he could. within ren'
sonable limits. to crime.
What would be the exercise Of al
due diligence would depend upon cir
cumstar ces. If he had actual knowl'
edge OF specific crime he was bound
to use such efforts as were common
surate with his knowledge and with
the character of the crime. If disor'
derby houses existed for a considerable
time, in the centre of the city, to his
knowledge, his obligation was to use q
very great degree of diligence to pro
cure evidence and apprehend the keep
! ers, such diligence as, considering the
employment and position of this de-
PENDANT, he was able to use.
IF any failure to act on his part wa.
due to the fact that he had made a cor
rupt bargain with these keepo .ol
protection or immunity, the question a.
to the extent of his duties, under the
rules, is of no Importance in the case.
"If In the performance of all the
duties devolving upon him as a member
of the department you find that he
could not reasonably do anything more
than he did in fact do, but did do al
that he was in fact able to do, having
regard to the character of these houses
and to other duties which he may have
been equally under obligation to per-
form, he cannot be held liable for non
~feasance. But If he knew that they
were disorderly houses and did not dc
all that he was able to do simply be
cause he had not been ordered by his
superior officers to do anything further
his omission cannot be excused; but In
such case If he failed merely for that
reason to perform every act reason
ably within his power to suppress these
houses he was guilty of nonfeasance.
Any neglect, failure or inefficiency of
his su 3erior officers or any other officer
could not excus dereliction on his part.
What Testimony Shows.
Testimony was introduced on the
part of the State tending to show that
the six houses In question, or some OF
them, were houses of ill-fame, in that
they were habitually kept n used for
purposes of public prostitution. In
many cases the proprietors themselves
testified that they were so habitudlly
kept, Mr.. Mason testified to what he
had found when he made the raid on
Books place in February, 1907. and on
the Metropole on August 8. The reg
lister is in evidence. Detectives Hankin-
son and Jarecki say they went there
with women and were able to procure
rooms. Frances Reeves and Eva Tap
pan said they had been there with
men; the latter hat she a been there
several times the same night with diff
ferent men. There is also the testi-
mony of Boston, the clerk. that the
place was disorderly. DeVita, Howard
and Ducker, the prosecutors officers.
made the raid on Weintraub's place on
February II. 1906. and stated the con-
ditions they found there. AS to
Krindle's place, o will remember the
testimony of DR.. Adler. who was ply
stefan there for eighteen months. He
also was employed by Book at one
time.
whether the houses were so ha-
bitualIy kept rs a question of fact for
You to determine. If you find that
of them were in fact so kept, the
defendant must be acquitted. IL they
were not such houses, he was under
no duty to them.
But If you find that they were so
kept, then they were disorderly houses
within the meaning of the law. Houses
of this kind are public nuisances; their
continued existence tends to injure the
morals of the community, and the
keepers of them are indictable under
the common law for misdemeanor.
IF you find as a fac that these six
houses, or any of them, were disorder
ly, you will proceed to determine
whether or not the defendant had
knowledge of that fact. If you find
that he had no such knowledge, he
must be acquitted, whatever the fact
may be as to the character of the
houses or the defendants legal duty to
suppress such houses. The State al
leges that he had knowledge, and must
prove that fact, or no conviction can
be had.
ron for Inference.
1.-THE State has offered evidence tend
ing to show that the defendant knew
that the houses, or some of them, were
at the time disorderly houses. His
knowledge on this subject is a matter
which may be inferred from proof of
facts which he knew. or which he had
good aso to believe, sufficient 10
create in his mind a firm belief that
these houses were being habitually
kept for purposes of prostitution. On
this subject you may consider his
testimony to the effect that some CT
these parties were known to him to
have kept such houses in other places,
and that, he had been instrumental in
requiring them to move; and also the
testimony of these parties as to having
paid him money (Which fact he de-
nied). If you find hat there is no evil
dence in the case sufficient to satisfy
x,a,.A ..s-l- IAar@~l - -aA-N.a.AIa 5At,Iaf