Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-10-24
HARRINGTON CASE
GOES TO THE JURY
FOR DEL|BERAT|ON
Judge Osborne Talks Forty-five
Minutes. in Making
Charge.
DECISION AS TO GUILT
EXPECTED BEFORE NIGHT
Counsel for Defense Asks Why
His Client Alone Was
Prosecuted.

charge of maintaining disorderly
house at the Hotel Navarro, now
rests with the jury, the twelve men
: having retired to deliberate on their
verdict at 2:15 this afternoon after
listening to q y-five-minute
charge from Judge Osborne.
The charge was regarded by those
who heard it as being impartial with
leaning, if anything, toward the de-
fendant In this 1t differed from the
charge in the Mausert case. where the
charge was regarded as exactly the
other way. The charge was delivered
slowly and impressively, and included
a brief but complete review of the
evidence of all the witnesses.
In opening his charge Judge Os-
borne read the indictment to the jury
and called attention to the fact that
severance of the Indictment had
been obtained for the purpose of try
ing Harrington alone. Judge Osborne
made no comment on this fact. He
then described the various rooms of
the hotel that had been referred to
by the witnesses.
THE State contends" said Judge
Osborne. that continued and habit
ual violations of the law went on in
the hotel in conduct in the restaur-
ant being lewd and obscene. 1t is a
question for the jury to determine
whether these facts are true or not,
and also whether the defendant per-
mitted such acts to go on and the
place be frequented by persons of bad
character"
He then called attention to the diff
ferent classes of testimony that had
been given, specifying the detectives,
the male and female frequenters of
the place and the testimony of Rev.
Edwin !. stearn and Samuel Wilson,
of the Anti-saloon League, who had
testified to occurrences in the restau-
rant of the hotel on last New Years
Eve.
In referring to the testimony given
by the detectives Judge, Osborne
said: You may or may not approve
Of this sort of Investigation, but that
has nothing to do with the case. The
testimony is competent and the only
aluestion for you to determine is
Whether you believe it or not
Judge Osborne called the attention
OF the jury to the fact that Harring-
ton claimed to have no knowledge of
what was going on in the hotel, and
that after March IL, when his partner
Joseph Nemrow, had retired from the
hotel, he had relied entirely on his
employees to run the business of the
hotel outside of the barroom. He
spoke of the claim of Harrington,
/ WHO SdlQ ne IOOk tile5 CASH TecelptS
each night but handed them to the
boolSkeeper in the morning, leaving
all the handling of accounts to the
bookkeepers and the renting of rooms
to the hotel clerks.
He then referred to testimony given
by Gustave Freund, night clerk, who
had said that Harrington had a room
,at the hotel, and to the testimony of
other witnesses who had told of see
ing Harrington around the hotel on
the occasions of their visits. I'm view
of these statements" asked the judge
of the jurors, "can you believe that
Harrington knew nothing of what
was going on in the hotel? That is
ACQUISITION for your determination.
Continuing, the judge said that the
offense of keeping disorderly house
did not consist only of the fact that
it existed, but that it was allowed to
exist when the owner or proprietor
had the power and opportunity to
control it,
In closing his charge, Judge Os-
borne said IF places where viola
tions of the law of the character tes-
titled to here are permitted to go on
unchecked, vice will run rampant
throughout the community, and if
continued will contaminate the very
foundations of our social structures.
, 10 IL pOSSlBlt lOl O. lidn lO COnQucI ID
place of the character this was al
legged to be and escape the RESPONSE
bility of the law by merely saying he
did not know what was going on, al
though he owned the place: was pres
ent on the premises almost constantly
and received the proceeds?"
That the testimony that the State
relies on to convict Harrington is all
most identical in nature with that
given at the trial of George E.
Mausert. of the Hotel Broad, last
May, is shown by the fact that
twenty-Seven witnesses were called to
the stand by the State, the exact num-
Der that were called in the Mausert
case. =
Harrington produced sixteen wit
nesses in his own behalf while in the
Mausert trial twenty-five were placed
on the stand by the defense. The
: Harrington trial has progressed more
rapidly than the Mausert trial, as
seven full court days were consumed
in the hearing of that case and the
summing up of counsel. while in the
present case less than five have been
taken.
When court convened today both
sides announced that they rested
their cases. and Mr.. Simpson then
asked Prosecutor Hood to make an
opening address to the jury. Mr..
HOOD consumed less than fiVe min
utes in stating that the State would
contend that under the evidence pro-
duced, Harrington was guilty of run
ming a "bawdy" house. I'VE will
rest this contention on the evidence
given by men paid to obtain evidence
against the hotel and by women ar
rested as frequenters of the place and
also by the testimony of men ar
rested in the hotel at the time the
raid was made
Questions Harrington's Trial.
In opening his argument to the
jury, Mr.. Simpson first called atten-
tion to the Indictment under which
Harrington is being tried He pointed
out that Joseph Nemrow. Gustave
Freund, George j. Biddle, John Beebe
and William Sullivan were jointly in
dlcted. but that for some reason
known only to the prosecutor he
chose to try Harrington alone for
the offense"
I'VE refute the testimony of these
private detectives by the testimony
of decent, honorable people--resident
of your own city, who come here be-
fore you and say they went to the
Navarro several times during the
week with their wives. mothers and
daughter"
Mr.. Simpson told the jury that
their verdict il against the defend
GCortinucd ON Page 4, Column -