Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-09-14
Takes Dismissal From Force
Into District Court.
CITES FAULTS IN TRIAL
Only Two Legal Members at the
Hearing. He Says.
CLAIMS RIGHT TO SILENCE
Refused to Make Explanation When
Taken to Task by His Su-
perior officer.

The question of the right Of a police
officer TO withhold explanation of a
charge brought against him by a
perior officer without being subject TO
penalty for INSTRUMENTATION. is called to
the attention of the District Supreme
Court today III petition filed by Private
j.. ]. Dreamer.
Netting on the petition of the policemanA
Justice Gould signed an order directing
the issuance of a writ of certiorari TO the
Commissioners of the District of Column
bia commanding them to certify 10 the
Supreme Court of the District all findings
of the trial board and proceedings had
before that board and the Commissioners
iii reference TO the case of Dreamer VINO
was recommended to be dismissed hy the
trial board and which recommendation
WAS followed by the Commissioners on
an appeal.
Allegations in Petition.
Ina tic petition filed through Attorneys
Wilton j. Lambert and +. III. leatman
il is claimed that Dreamer was appointed
a private Of the metropolitan police force
August Ii. 1905. and performed his duties
as such until midnight Of September Il,
1911 when he was diSniSSed that All
gust :, 1911, charges were preferred
against him. accusing him OF failing TO
patrol his beat July ~, 1911. between the
hours of I:19 and : % pm, OF entering
a building not in tho immediate perform
ance of his duty during that time, of
smoking i'm uniform while on duty and
failing to obey the orders Of his superior
officers in violation of section AZ of the
manual governing the police force. 1t is
further ayerred that the hearing of the
charges was set for August Il. 1911, on
which date he appeared before the trial
BOARD with his counsel and found that
the alleged trial board was constituted of
three members OF the METROPOLITAN police
force and not made up of two members of
the police force and an assistant corpora
ton counsel. as required by law. that
hearing was had of the charges. and there
after the trial board found him not guilty
OF falling To patrol mis- beat, entering
building not in the immediate perform
ance of his duty and smoking While i'll
uniform hut guilty of failing to obey the
orders of his superior officers In violation
IF section a. of the manual governing
the police force.
1t is further set forth in the petition
that Private Dreamer entered the garage
of one Mr.. Gale at the request of the lat
ters chauffeur. who informed him that
he was about to leave the city for Several
days. and as there was in the garage
property of the value Of between eigh-
teen and twenty thousand dollars. he de
sired the officer To Keep a particular
watch on the aIagc during the
time and to inform the other officers
on the heat: that after being there
between three or four minutes and while
inspecting the locks of the place and the
like. a sergeant appeared on the scene
and ordered him out and thereupon de-
Inanded to know his business in the ga
rage. that Private Dreamer informed the
sergeant that he was in there on police
business, hut refused 10 disclose the ma
ture of the police business for the reason
that he anticipated that charges would be
preferred against him before the trial
board, as he nistrusted the sergeant and
feared that any statement that he would
make would be so manipulated as to be
used against him in the anticipated hear
ing.