New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-09-19
Alleged System to Shield Mem
Der of Force Openly AssalIed
in General Sessions.
BREAKS DOWN IN THIS CASE
John Horay, Jointly Indicted with
Patrolman Huntington, Con-
victed of Grand
Larceny.


Avenue B. guilty of grand larceny in
the second degree for swindling John
Kondratiuck out Of 1905 Judge Swami
and some of the jurors who found the
verdict announced that half a dozen
members of the police force had, in their
opinion, testified falsely for the defence
in order to protect Reuben r. Hunting
ton, a patrolman of the Union Market
police station, who was Jointly indicted
with Horay
This is a case where the system
broke down" said Judge Swami at the
end Of a conversation with the Jurors i'm
open court. during which he assailed
the so-called system in the Police De-
partment and expressed the opinion that
a lieutenant, a sergeant ana four patrol
men Of the Union Market police station
had come into court for the express
purpose of swearing this case out OF
court"
Huntington. who had been released in
$500 bail, disappeared from the court
house when the jury came in with its
verdict after five minutes deliberation.
Judge Swami increased the bail TO $4,000
and issued a bench warrant Detective
Leigh, of the District Attorneys staff.
brought the accused policeman back
into court from a nearby saloon, and he
received until to-day 10 supply the addi-
tional bail or go 10 the TOmbs.
Each time the prosecution was, con-
Quoted by Thomas Channon Press, of
District Attorney Whitman's staff, the
first two trials before Judge Malone re-
sulting in disagreements Of the juries.
ordinarily the case would have been
placed on file, but both Judge Malone
and Mr. Press agreed that it was an
exceptional case because of the impli-
cation OF a member Of the police force,
and the third trial. resulting in con-
viction. was the result.
"Of course this defendant" said Judge
conviction, lis small fry. The people Of
this city are after somebody else
Did you gentlemen believe the testi-
mony Of the police officers from Hunt
ington's precinct?" he asked the jurors.
BY word and shaking Of heads several
of the jurors replied in the negative.
Neither did l." continued Judge
Swami, who then addressed the Jury
az follows:
II is a sad commentary that wherever
police officers safety or position Is con-
CCrued. there seems 10 be- "A prevailing
Cpinion-and IL seems to me TO be justified
by the factS-that he can get any number
Of police officers, apparently Of great re-
speCtabilitv. 20 testify In his favor so as
10 prove, according 10 their testimony, d
perfect alibi
II such a thing We're 10 PREVAIL against
the truth, then any officer could commit
any crime and a citizen would be perfectly
helpless. and that has occurred in times
past. IL was my view that these police
officers came here for the express purpose
OF swearing this case out OF court-not
because of any love for this defendant but
because they wanted 20 save a fellow off,
Ger Jointly indicted with this man They
knew this particular defendant was not
man that the people would struggle very
hard 20 get, because he was OF the petty
thief kind.
/ would not have this defendant under
any circumstance give false testimony
against the officer. but | am convinced that
he could give different testimony from what
he gave on the stand. II is altogether
wholly improbable that this igporant Rus
sian, as counsel for the defence properly
said should have by chance picked out
the Identical officer that the defendant
knew best and that his witnesses knew
best
You have stated that in your opinion the
police officers gave false testimony I did
q at hal a h4 Of HGu al
GERS said from beginning to end Fur
thermore this is another remarkable fact
that after this Russian had his money
stolen from him, he went 10 that police
station and told exactly how IL happened,
and said that a police officer was impli-
Gated In IL. And the police botter does
not mention a police officer although the
complainant was ClamOrng for this police
officer. told II 10 his attorney and his at
tCrney's clerk, and the attorneys clerk
vent over and lodged a complaint against
tho officer. But the blotter does not men
tion anything about the officer.
K0ndratiuck, tho complaining witness
against Hcray. arrived in New York
from Crawford. Kan. on May IL. 1911.
on his way 10 his home I'm Russia.
ne had S3Oj. the savings OF two
wears work as laborer. fastened in
one Of his pockets.
A stranger he met on the train intro
duced him to Horay. He was at the
latter's house on May II with half a
dozen other persons when Horay said he
had lost $50 bill and insisted upon
every one being searched.
Says His Money Was Taken.
Horay declared that he would not sub
NIT TO being searched. excepting at a
police station. He finally agreed as a
COMPROMISE TO be searched in the house
by a policeman one Of the party went
out and returned. according 20 Kondra-
thIck. with Huntington, by whom he
yas searched and the 500 taken from
him.
Huntington. as a witness for the de-
fence. denied that he had been near
Horav's home on May II. He asserted
that between and p. m. on that day
ne had been In the police station house
and the testimony Of Lieutenant Robert
T. Mills. Sergeant Merritt and Patrol
men LABEL. sauer. Byrne and. Haggerty
nj the Union Market police station.
tended TO corroborate his statement.
Inasmuch as Kondratiuck set the time
Of day as 4 o'clock in the afternoon when
he said Huntington had searched him in
aoray's house Huntington appeared to
have en- aIlbi, and IL the jury had be-
l,cvod the police officers the prosecutions
case would have broken down.
Horay was remanded for sentence un-
I'll next Monday. Patrolman Huntington
il nfty wears old and has been on the
nolice force twenty years. He was iden-
titled by Kondratiuck by MS shield mum
h.r a37O and hOndratiuck also picked