The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-05-24
LAWYERS DID NOT
APPEAR BEFORE
HEALTH BOARD
HOODWINKED From First Page.l

NN~oHlIiush 4 KUN TlEbU PAge.D
use OF swlll. but he had been using II
for four years after the ordinance was
passed until a circular notice of July
1908 and wanted the same indulgence
ne had had before that circular was
issued
Or. Leyy's Circular.
| DR.. Levy fled copy of the circular
which ne had secured from dairyman
and 1t was read 1t formally notified
da!rymen that an ordinance was passed
June Q. 1904, which forbade the feed
ing of swiil, but stated that so many
matters of greater Importance had
taken the attention OF the health au.
thorities after the reorganization In
isoe that the board had not been In
a position to act. but that after a Ger.
tain date those using the waste would
be prosecuted
Mr.. Deitrick identified the circular,
and reverting to his employment O,
attorneys, testified that Mr.. Wise had
telephoned him early in February that
the desired permission had been
granted.
In two or three days he 'phoned me
his money was due, and said could
call at his Office and settle. He
| phoned me at least four times before
i went in on March 90. / was busy a:
home. / had had no interview with
Mr.. Pollock, but knew Mr.. Wise was a
member Of the Council. Mr.. Wise told
Mr.. Brittle in my hearing that he
could not be employed to get an ordi-
nance through the Council"
DR.. Miller wanted to know why the
witness was willing to give up 500 to
a lawyer when the permission was to
come from the Health Board.
why could lawyer get 1t better
than you?" he asked
Il had applied to the Health Depart
ment In 1908 when that circular was
issued" responded the witness.
Pertinent Question.
Mr.. Lynch wanted to know if II;
wasn't equally as bad in Wise to In
fuence city official to violate law
as itSwould have been to get the Coun-
Gil to change 1t, but the witness In
sisted that he asked no violation. The
witness admitted feeding swill In vio-
lation of the law after receiving the
notice. There was a sharp passage
OF arms between the accused attorneys
and Mr.. Lynch over an effort to have
the legal opinions of John Garland
Pollard and Others read. Mr.. Pollock
l0S1Stlng tNdl MI. LIZ ~ ii'Atit 49,
gone astray: that he had the impress
sion that 1t was necessary that the or
dinance be changed.
He insisted that it had been his
legal opinion that no such change was
required. Mr.. Lynch wanted TO Know
why it was II the ordinance did not
prohibit feeding fresh swill that
Messrs. Pollock and Wise had con-
sented 10 enter a plea OF guilty IN the
Taylor case in the Hastings Court.
Chairman Richardson ruled the whole
matter out. City Attorney pollard
brought out the fact that DR.. Levy nad
issued a circular TO dairymen on De-
cember IA. 1906, calling their atten-
ton TO the law against feeding swiii'
and the circular was read. Inc WIZ
ness did not remember II.
DR.. f. NJ Reade was sworn and toih
OF his offering the ordinance in the
Council at the request of Mr.. Wise.
who brought 1t to him with letter
from DR. Levy to the City Council ask
iner its adoption, the ordinance being
recommended by the Board of Health.
Mr.. Wise told me that he was at
torney for some dairy people
thought ne meant the Richmond Dairy
Company" said DR.. Reade. II came
into the Council at the request OF
DIR. Ennion Williams and DR.. Levy TO
aid in furtherance Of health matters
and gladly introduced and secured the
adoption of measure recoHmenoeu
by the Health Board"
Curtis Heard of Fund.
Former Dairy Inspector r. II. Cur
tbs said the first information of a
fund having been raised by the dairy
men came to him on April from j..
NJ Putze, who said something about
a law being passed to allow feeding
sn-ill. Putze said he understood 1t
had cost the dairymen either $1,000 or
$500. he didn't know which. Later,
John Carter at the Gas Works told
him that he had been told by dairy
man that they We're feeding swill
again, but that sit cost them some
thing TO do IT. On. APRIL IL, the
witness said. he went to see MT.
Drinker, who told him that the change
in the law had cost the dairymen $500,
Mr.. Drinker having paid s42.5o. Mr..
Drinker told him what the others had
paid. SAYING there had been a meeting
at Mr.. Brittle's place of seven men
who had started the fund, Brittle.
Deitrick and Miller giving 500 each.
Mr. Curtis testified that Mr.. Drinker
told him that the understanding was
that the money was to be paid over
by Mr.. Deitrick after the ordinance
was signed by the Mayor. George
Drinker told me that on April ILL.,
continued Mr.. Curtis. ION April %
CHR. Kemp stopped me on the street
! told him what | had heard, and he
said. Yes that's right
"On Tuesday I went out with Food
Inspector Noble. He walked with
me to Brittles place ana Brittle told
us that the swill made such mess
that he wouldn't feed it in his barn.
Coming back. we stopped at Mr..
in MIR. Nohle's hearing OF how tn
Kcmp's place, and he told US again
in Mr.. Mobiles hearing Of how :he
permission was gotten. Hs said Mr..
Farrand had sent cheek for $50 at
ter the fund was paid. and the three
men who put up $500 eacl. and divided
it between them, He told US that
George Drinker did the collecting In
that section. He said In Mr.. Noble's
hearing that the money had been paid
on presentation OF the ordinance signed
by the Mayor. had then heard or
this from four separate sources. Mr..
Noble was with me when Mr.. Kemp
told me on April %" Witness tcsti-
fed that he had severed his connection
With tho Health Department April l.
NJ