New Britain herald., 1917-04-16
DOG WARDEN FINED
 FOR HITTING WOMAN
.CoHey Assessed $1O After Warm
 Battle in Court

Following a tubbornly-contested and lengthy continued hearing before Judge James T. Meskill in police court today, characterized by merciless z handling of the accused and caustic a arraignment of Policeman George w. Moffit by Prosecuting Attorney George x w, klett, as we'll as frequent lively ptilts between counsel, Supernumerary Police and Dog Warden John Cofeyf0 was fined $1O and costs for assault
 upon Mrs. Catherne Rusick of rear
 Pennington avenue in differences over an unmuzzled dog owned by the \ complainant. Bonds for an appeal
 were fixed at $100. Attorney F. F.
 McDonough appeared as counsel for
 the defense. Coffey was recently re-
 appointed as dog warden by Chief of
 Police William J. Rawlings, after 8
 service of about eight years. The lat
 ter said that no action will be taken, if any is decided upon, until he bes
 comes fully acquainted with the cir cumstances and testimony.
 Policeman Moffit, witness for the defense, came in for caustic arraign- z ment from Prosecutor Klett for hiss part in the case, not as a witness but for conduct when serving subpoenas. x The latter said that he greatly regret-x
 ted Policeman Moff1t's appearance in
 the case and his conduct. UndeE
 cross the latter admitted
 that he talked with one of the states
 witnesses, when serving the sum-
 mons, said that he did not think Cof-
 fey could do such thing, that he was
 playing in hard luck and had beens
 out of work. On the witness stands
 this morning, he testified that hes happened to be passing when the al-S
 legged assault took place and denieds that the accused put his hands on tho woman. E The complainant, who is in a delisA. cate physical condition, testified that she had removed the dogs muzzle sSe that it could eat and that it got away from her temporarily. She said that she remonstrated with Officer Coffey as he was putting the animal in hics team, was made the subject of prdr fanity and then stopped a blow to the | right side of her jaw. As 8 resulty she said. much pain was suffered and
 she was greatly frightened. Testimony as to the assault wasI given by several women, persons liv-l ing in the building adjoining the1 home of Mrs. Rusick. a l Officer Coffey, Policeman Moff1tt and&
 Joseph Grabeck, who was with thd& first named on the afternoon in quesd l ton, were witnesses for the defense2y 1. Coffey denied using improper lan& | guage or that he touched the com 2 plainant. He admitted that she re@N
 monstrated strenuonsly to having the9| ! dog taken but was informed that thGxE | objections came too late. He was usssR | able to identify the complainant faI
 court although Grabeck was able tcs. do so. The latter testified that Cofnesa did not strike 9 blow but affirmed that <
 he did threaten to "send the wagon for the complainant. This Coffey had | previously denied.
 | Attorney McDonough believed that
 the entire proceedings were due to
 the devotion of a human for a dog l and womanly "emotionahsm." He
 did not believe that there had been
 an assault and thought that there had I been much more seriousness given | the alleged assault than it merited. ! Protest was entered against the nier- | ctless handling of Policeman Mont.
 In reply Prosecutor Klett mentioned his long connection with the court, how he has always fought for the po- lice department members through
 thick and thin and greatly regretted
 that he had to treat Policeman MonittM as he did. But he did not feel that hta9 ! could do otherwise under the cifcum M
 stances. N