The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1908-01-06

officer, and as a detective sergeant;
because the count is tainted with du-
plicity; because the allegations are un-
certain, multifarious and i-ncongruous;
because a police officer is not such an
officer of the State against whom an
indictment for nonfeasance will lie; be-
cause a detective sergeant is not such
an officer; because the facts set out are
not specific, and the court leaves it
uncertain whether the defendant
charged with nonfeasance is a detective
or an officer"
Six indictments were found against
CORDIALLY, four for malfeasance two
for nonfeasance, and pleas of not guilty
were entered in all of them.
The last September Grand Jury found
n of these indictments for nonfeas-
ance, and this is the one on trial to-
day. The indictments of malfeasance
Will be disposed of. probably, as soon as
the charge of n~onfeasance has been got
rid of. The first no~nfeasance charge
was found by the Grand Jury of 1906.
and this is still hanging over the sleuth's
head. He is under bail in $500 or each
one of the six indictments, put up by
Peter ]. Nash, his brother-in-law.
The malfeasance Indictments cover
charges of bribery, and 1t is set forth
specifically that CORDIALLY received n bride
of SIS from Charles Duncan, another OF
S25 from Louis Weintraub, one of $50 from
Herman Wagner and a fourth from Louis
Book, all Keepers of disorderly houses.
July 1, 1906, is the date formally set on
which the alleged offenses were committed.
These keepers all had their places closed
up by the Sheriff.
Among those in the audience that
watched the proceedings with much in
terest were former Police Commissioners
George A. Scheller, president of the board
at the time of the trouble, and Frederick
W. Kroeger, against whom Il charge of
nonfeasance was also found by the Grand
Jury, besides several policemen. cab
drivers and women of the street, also
found by the Grand Jury.
Scheller escaped the Indictment found
against the other police officials at the
time-Kroeger, Frederick Castles and
Henry Gardner. The trial day of neither
of these former officials has been fixed.
Mr.. Kalisch fortified each because with
ansargument, and insisted strenuously that
his client could hardly be held responsible
for the suppression Of all the disorderly
houses In various parts of the city. as
alleged in the Indictment.
He insisted that the facts in the case
had not been properly set forth in the in
dictlnents, and occasionally shifted at his
boutonniere of fresh violets on the left
lapel of his long prince Albert at about
the same time that his colleague, Mr.. Nc
Dermitt, caressed the dainty rosebud that
adorned his coat.
Prosecutor Henry Young now and then
Interrupted the speaker to say that he
was on the wrong track and that Cor
bally had knowledge of the existence Of
disorderly houses land he did absolutely
nothing"
MR.. Kaliseh insisted that police officers
are not public officers, and hence can not
be held for ~nonfeasance.
80 far as the question whether n police
officer is n public officer is concerned" re-
marked the judge at this point, IT will
rule at once that he is, 1 think, a public
officer, and as such subject to indictment
for nonfeasance. / am ready to say now
that a police officer may be indicted for
nonfeasanee, provided a proper case has
been made out. The question is whether
the Indictment sets this out suf6 ciently."
Mr.. Young said in formal reply that the
indictment was so distinctive that of neces-
sity it should stand. The office and its
duties were distinctly set forth, he added, |
and there was no question that CORDIALLY
was the officer referred to as having failed
to do his duty. |
"Corbally knew of the existence OF these
A'OtoCGa oAHiN Ai1 ~ 'Ae9 |
have made some faint arrests, but he did
not use all the means in his power to sup
press these houses. The general allegation
,is r~orfeasance, and the specific allegation
is that. beir1g charged as a public officer
with the duty of oppression. ne did moth
ing"
Mr.. Young argued further that a police
officer was certainly a public officer, with
definite and distinct duties.
While the argument was on the cause
of 1t was securely secluded in the ordinary
prisoners pen within a few feet of the
bench as the result of the charge of at
tempted subornation of perjury, on
which he was arrested last night, and on
the strength Of which he went to the
county Jail.
Judge Ten Eyck, at the close OF the
argument, dismissed the motion to quash.
The case will go to trial this afternoon.
In dismissing the motion Judge Ten Eyck
said that a motion to dismiss the indict-
ment on demurrer might be considered, but
n motion to quash such Indictment was in
the discretion Of the court and no motion
to quash should be allowed unless it
showed an injustice.
As the objections raised by counsel for
the defendant were purely of a technical
nature, the judge saw no good reason why
the motion should be granted.
Counsel for CORDIALLY took exception to
the ruling of the court.