Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-10-24
HARRINGTON CASE
READY FOR JURY
tcontinued from First pase1

that they have absolutely nothing to
do with the sentencing of a prisoner.
But l say that have lot to do with
II"
At this juncture Judge Osborne in
terrupted counsel, asking him not to
= make such a statement, for such was
not the case.
1t doesn't necessarily follow that
the defendant Will spend three years
in State prison if the jury returns
verdict of guilty." said the court.
They have nothing to do with the
sentence
By wac of illustration, Mr.. Simpson
said a man could he killed by bull
let which went off by the explosion
of some gunpowder, but unless some
Lone he'd pulled the trigger he would
not have ne II killed.
so with this case. Mr.. Simpson
srgued. UNLESS the Jury pulls the
trigger the court cannot impose the
sentence.
The court ,ooled at the question
4 differently and as a result Mr.. Simp-
son asked that the matter be made a
part of the records, entering an OBJ
Section. Continuing Mr. Simpson said:
"Tf you find that this house was
q disorderly house-and a house can
be disorderly in many ways-if you
t.fid this house was d disorderiy house
as matter Of law, after you have
realized that it was a hotel doing
business with hundreds of persons,
then you come 10 the main question.
Then the next question before you
Is, Is the defendant guilty of keep
ing the llouse?' You must then have
evidence. We have proved to you
that the defendant did not know Of
a few unlawful cases of men and
women being assigned to rooms. This
in ha OF hot
When Harrington went into, the
business he went into it with Mem
row. His duty was to attend to the
liquor end Of the business. That was
his business. Nemrow was a prac-
tical hotel man. There is positively
and absolutely no connection to show
that Harrington was directly respon-
sible for any misconduct on the part
Of few persons out of the hundreds
that patronized the hotel. Nemrow
got out of the business March 12.
What proof have you that since then
q Harrington knew Of a single instance
Of wrong-doing?
Commercial Hotel.
This was commercial hotel deal
ing with all kinds of people. On the
whole. everything was conducted as
nearly right and proper as is possible
for any hotel to be conducted any
where. Disreputable people will and
did creep in. They will creep in any
where. The finest and best hotels in
New York, London Paris and Berlin
have few Of that element. 1t can't
be prevented. Therefore, Harrington
is not guilty of Intentionally conduct
ing a house of i'll repute.
Take the testimony of Plate, the
private detective, and one Of the best
OF the force detailed to get evil
Z dence at the Navarro. His report, in
his own handwriting, was that he
never once saw Harrington assign a
couple to a room
eff in the course of four months 1t
could be shown there were eighteen
or twenty among the thousands that
patronized the hotel who were off
color, l maintain that 1t does not
prove that Harrington was guilty of
conducting and maintaining an open
!. and notorious baWdy house.
You have testimony from a wit
hess produced by the State that Har-
rinBton told a girl to keep away from
the hotel. He didn't want her there,
or any of her ilk That is sufficient
to show that when such cases came
under his observation he took steps
to correct them
Harrington's testimony late yester- |
! day afternoon was given slowly but |
with an apparent effort to answer
every question asked him fully. On |
cross-examination he displayed a lack
of knowledge concerning the inner
workings of the hotel outside of the
barroom and explained his lack of
knowledge by saying that up TO
March IL last Joseph Nemrow had
been his partner in the business and
had had entire charge of running the
hotel end of the business.
After Nemrow left, Harrip gton ex-
planned, he had issued no new orders,
but had permitted the clerks. head
waiter, housekeeper and her maids |
mt Conduct the house the same as
.Mey had under the direction Of Mem
'srow. He admitted he handled all the |
money received by the different |
cashiers, taking it at the close of |
business each night and locking it |
up until the following morning. when |
he turned II over TO the bookkeeper, |
a man named Russman.
Russman, he explained kept the |
books Of the hotel and had never been |
requested by Harrington at any time
to give him a statement of the bust |
ness. In effect, Harrington said he |
was content TO allow the business to |
practically run itself, as far as the |
hotel end was concerned, after Mem
row had departed.
prosecutor sums Up.
Prosecutor Hood in summing up
was brief and concise. Usually Mr..
Hood is cool and suave under all con-
ditions, but his actions and tone of
voice gave the impression to the spec
tators that he was hard pressed.
He said he was not at all concerned
with persons not on trial in this case.
His concern was solely with Cornelius
II Harrington Ea ridicI11ad tho taatI.
mony brought out by the defense that
the hotel was not a paying propo-
sition, and pointed to the number of
rooms in the hotel, the price that was
asked for them and the number of
persons who frequented the cafe and
restaurant night after night.
Continuing, he reviewed the conduct
Of persons in the place from the time
the investigation was started until
the night of the raid. as brought out
by witnesses for the State.
ION New Years Eve there was
hiiarity," he said. But we have no
objection to that. There was drunk
enness, but we will not concern our
selves with that. But there was lewd-
ness, which is the insipiency of Il
greater crime"
RidicuIes Ignorance. Il
Prosecutor Hoods strong point
that which he laid the most stress on
was the absurdity of Harrington's
ignorance of what was going on in
the hotel.
do you think it is possible for a
man like Harrington to be around a
place for four months without know
ing what was going on in the place? ?"
he asked DO you believe he paid I
absolutely no attention to anything |
that went on outside of the bar Isn't !