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

but because he had not been able tc
procure any information sufficient tc
warrant an arrest, either with or with
out warrant.
But If you find that he had knowl-
edge of facts sufficient to reasonably
convince him that these houses, or any
of them, were ~disorderly. and had evil
dence or could by the exercise of due
diligence have procured evidence q
facts constituting them as such, it wa:
his duty, not only to report but to set
that all reasonable near were tater
to have complaint made to a magis-
trate, setting forth these facts, an6
procure a warrant, If possible, fol
their arrest.
eff he reported such facts to the chiel
or other officer he might properly have
assumed that the chief would perform
his duty, and that a complaint would
be ordered to be made, under which q
warrant might be procured; but if ne
knew and had reported facts reason
ably sufficient to procure a warrant,
and no such proceedings were ever ~
dered OF taken and he knew that fact,
and If he knew or ought reasonably to
have known that the chief had failed
and neglected to make any move in the
matter it was the defendants duty
after a reasonable time to himself pro-
cure a complaint to be made and have
a warrant issued. if possible, and IL
you n that he omitted so to do under
such a state of facts you should ind
him guilty of nonfeasance.
According to the defendants testi-
mony, the facts which he learned and
reported were never, in his judgment,
sufficient to authorize a complaint and
warrant. If this be true, there was no
dereliction on the part of the captain
or chief in falling to order proceedings
for arrest.
IF you find, however, that the facts
which he reported did not comprise all
the material evidence which Re
had obtained, or which he could
by reasonable diligence have DID,
tanned sufficient evidence, but
did not so do, then he was guilty of
nonfeasance in falling to procure such
evidence or to report it, and in falling
to use all means within his power to
see that it was acted upon by COM
plant or arrest.
IF the defendant did not fully per-
form his duty he cannot excuse himself
by pleading ignorance of facts which
he could have known or procured evil
dence of. and which a proper investi-
cation, within his power to make,
would have disclosed.
"If by the use of due diligence he
could have procured evidence to show
that these houses were disorderly, and
did not take all steps, reasonably
within his power, to bring these Of
tenders to justice, he was derelict in
the performance of his duty and should
be found guilty.
"If such an excuse were permitted, it
be made a cloak to cover all
kinds of corruption or crookedness.
There Is evidence in the case about
the expenditure of money by private de-
t%ectives. You are not concerned with the
question whether this expenditure was
judicious or necessary. The question
for you to determine on this branch of
the case is: Could the defendant, as a
police officer, with the knowledge he
had-whatever you may find that to be
procured evidence against these
houses, with the Means at his COM
mand?
Testimony was given on the part of
NAo q Nv AAA6A III
of the six specified cases money was
paid by the keepers of the houses to
the defendant, either personally oil in
directly, for protection from prosecu-
ton. and that he also had knowledge
of the fact that money was being paid
by these parties to Captain Serbia. This
is denied by the defendant.
whether this testimony is true or
7-k l. R~n 49, a. IAk2r1fn1 re
kind that it is not true, 1T amounts to
but if % find that it is true,
that the money was SO paid, it has
q bearing on the question of the de-
PENDANTS knowledge, and his good
faith and diligence.
9TH is not ON trial ON any
charge of accepting brides, but IL 1t be
true hat money vas paid to him In this
manner, or to Captain Serbia, with his
knowledge, it would have an important
bearing on the question whether the de-
endan did know the character of these
houses, and whether he did or did not
use all effective means within his power
to obtain evidence and uppress them.
IF it be true that money vas SO
paid, or valuable presents made to the
you would be justified in
concluding, If in your judgment the
evidence In the case so indicates that
the defendant did have knowledge that
the party so. paying it was guilty Of
keeping a disorderly house, and that
the defendant did not use due diligence
to suppress it.
ut has been shown that some of the
witnesses were keepers of
houses of ill-fame. This fact does not
them incompetent as witnesses,
hut it is evidence bearing upon the
question of their credibility and the
weight to be given TO their testimony.
""The defendant Is "a competent wit
ness In his own behalf, and is entitled
to have his statement carefully con
'In considering his testimony, how
ever, You should bear In mind the fact
he has n grave interest in the re-
suit of this trial.
That is always an important thing to
remember in considering the credibility
and weight of the evidence of a man
WIN has a great interest in the result of
a trial.
You may consider the inherent prob
ability or improbability of the testi-
mony of any witness in the case, also
the intelligence, manner, conduct and
appearance of the witnesses on the
stand.
Where the testimony of witnesses as