The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-05-31

nothing so long as the ordinance stood
in the way. He stated that he consider
ed them throughout as councilmen as
sisting in getting through wise and
proper amendment, as other men in the
Council were aiding in the work OF the
Health Department
Il had no idea they were paid" said
DIR. Levy. LAS TO this matter of a
construction of the ordinance so that
1t was possible for US to allow 1t to
be fed, l never heard the point raised
until read Mr. Wise's statement to
the Council in the paper the next
morning. We all understood 1T was
necessary to amend the ordinance. and
we're never asked to make any such
discrimination"
Mr.. Deitrick was recalled and asked
the direction question, What did you
employ Mr. Wise and Mr.. Pollock to
do for you?"
ITO get us the permission to feed
waste just as ii was prior to DR.. Levy's
letter of July. 1905" he answered.
Robert Golden, a reporter for the
Mr.. Pollock as to whether he had
ever heard that lie had been told to
notify his clients to feed the waste
| The witness answered that he had
impression, but could not swear that
| DR.. Levy told him so. G. h. smith.
reporter for the Journal, testified that
| Dr. Levy told him in answer TO
| direct question that the ordinance hao
not been suspended, but that his IN
spectors had been instructed not TO DC
TOO vigorous. as the ordinance would
be repealed before any prosecutions
could reach the Hastings Court
MIR. Wisc's Statement.
Mr.. Wise then took the stand, ana
in a cIearcut statement outlined ms
connection with the case from the pc
ginning. He swore that he had never
discussed with DR.. Levy the amend
ment to the ordinance until after per
mission to feed the waste had been
secured. He told of the Taylor trial
and appeal, and said 1T was at that
time he got from DR.. Levy the idea OF
a difference being made between fresh
waste and sour swill. He told OF his
employment by Miller & Deitrick.
who offered to pay $1,000 to feed inc
waste. II felt that 1t was proper
and right permission. and that Dr,
Levy had the right to grant II anu
discriminate between fresh waste anu
that not fit for cows, and I accepted
the employment and associated MT
Pollock" .,o
witness went on, that Mr.. BRUTE sa,u
something about the amendment !"
the ordinance, and right mere Mi
wise said he would have nothing 10
do with an amendment 20 Tue 80
nance and II 1t was in their MINDS
that he was retained both before the
Health Department and to secure the
amendment. he would split the fee IN
two. Mr.. Brittle said he didn't know
Mr. Wise was in the Council Il 1el.
mat had the right to accept tne
whole but that 1t might be in their
minds that the fee covered douoie
service:,a he said. Before Mr.. Pollock
understood why had cut the fee, ne
Objected. but when I explained mel
said had done exactly right.
"Mr. Pollock told me that DR.. Levy
had told him it was all right--to go
ahead and to make sure OF the per
mission. went to see Levy myseH,
He said, Tell your people to so ahead
and use the fresh waste In sanl,arS
manner and there will be no trouble
i realized then that l had earned my
fee, and telephoned Deitrick and Brit
tle and several times asked Deitritk to
como up and settle. The question or
an amendment to the ordinance hhd
not been discussed. did not then
know that Beattie and saunders had
been before, the board. That is the
whole story. briefly told.
"As TO the ordinance, ] talked win
Or. Levy as to the verbal construc-
ton. When he said the board wanted
to amend it was sincerely glad as
1t would settle an old wrangle with
the dairymen. Mr.. Pollocks interest
In the matter then entirely ceased .-hut
I am personally interested in the
Richmond Dairy to the extent of about
SIS 900. and the question OF this
amendment was OF great personal In
terest to me. My own idea was to
have refused to vote on the matter be-
cause of my personal pecuniary rela-
ton to the dairy business, regardless
OF my employment as attorney"
Mr.. Pollock's Statement.
Mr. Pollock followed with clear
and deliberate statement of his con.
nection with the affair. beginning with
his defense Of Taylor in the Hustlngs
Court for a fee of $500, which was
paid. 1t was Taylor who told him he
knew of dairymen who would put up
fund OF $1,000 for permission to
feed the waste