Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1918-07-10
COURTS REMOVAL
POWER QUESTIONED
Counsel for Accused Policemen
Say Custer Law Is Un-
constitutional.
JUDGE RESERVES DECISION
Motion to Quash Proceedings in
Case of Captain Pollock
Made Test.

After nearly four hours Of intense ar
gument in tho Hastings Court yes
terday hy opposing counsel upon a mo-
tion to 1uash the custer proceedings
preferred against Captain George e.
Pollock upon the grounds that the
"oustcr act Of 1916" is unconstitutional
and that the Hastings Court has no
Jurisdiction in this matter. Judge u.
c. Richardson adjourned court and took
the motion under consideration. Al
though Judge Richa rdson was reluc-
tant to give any indication as TO
when he would arrive at decision
in regard TO the matter. no said tina,
the custer rules were returna bic on F.
day morning and as the cases would
be tried then. hc probably would be
ready to render his opinion by tina;
time.
The motion TO Guash the proceedings
in the custer cases had reference only
to the case OF Captain Pollock How
ever. il was generally understood that
this was being made test case, and In
the event that Judge Richardson re-
turned decision favorable to the de-
tense. the dismissal of the charges
against Chief of Police G. A. sherry.
Detective L. g. Bertucci and Police.
man G.. y. strain would be only a mat
ter of form.
ARGUMENT PURELY
As TO LEGAL POINTS
Although the argument as whole
yesterday was technical. a large num-
Der of people crowded the courtroom in
,ensely interested in the forensic con
test The Commonwealth was repre-
sented by Commonwcalths Attorney
George +. Wise. Prosecutor r. 3. Dun
ford. of the Prohibition Department,
and by Murray NJ. Mcclure and George
Bryan, OF the Richmond Council of
Defense. The defense was represented
by Attorney Gilbert X Pollock and
Colonel David II. Leakc
The defense made a motion TO quash
the proceedings against Captain Fol
lock upon hvc general grounds. Tho
first motion was that the Hastings
Court had 10 jurisdiction in the trial OF
custer cases against members of the
police force at all; that this power was
invested solely and exclusively" N
stiS -ioS y Os VI liiC S9tS VI INlNHiuOHu lie
second motion was that the "ous,er
Law OF 1915" is unconstitutional and
void in that the Constitution in section
l20 limits the grounds upon which the
defendant may be removed to "miscon-
duct in Office or neglect Of duty" and it
is not within the power OF the Legis!a-
ture TO add additional offenses as suo-
jects of dismissal The third motion
was that George f. Wise. as Com
monwealths Attorney, was not the
proper person 10 bring the complaint.
thereby acting in the double role OF
accuscr and prosecutor"
CLAIM POLLoCI<'s MISCONDUCT
WAS NOT WHILE "IN OFFICE"
The fourth motion or general ie-
murrcr was that the first, second.
third, fourth and NTH counts brought
against the defendant are not sufii-
cient in law" The fifth motion or spec
ial demurrer was that regardless of
how many orerses the defendant may
have committed regardless OF how
many times he had been drunk or con-
sorted with an evil element. regard
less of how reprehensible his conduct
may have been this did not constitute
duty'-the two grounds upon which
the Constitution provides for the sus-
pension or removal from Office.
In reply to the argument OF Gilbert
X. Pollock. for the defense, Common
wealth's Attorney Wise said that the
defense had raised only one pertinent
argument and that was in regard TO
the jurisdiction Of the court in the
trial Of these custer cases. Mr.. Wise
said that every decision asserts and
recognizes the principle that the po-
lice officer is both a municipal and
State officer. And acting in this dual
capacity a police officer as we'll as any
other officer-State. county or muni-
cipal-can be removed by the custer
law except where specifically excepted
and provided for by other methods.
LEAkE ARGUES AGAINST
POWER OF REMOVAL
Colonel Leakc for the defense. urged
that regardless Of the breach of dis
cipline or ofrenses or misbehavior Of
the police officer. unless it was proved
that he had been guilty of ''misconduct
in office and neglect OF duty" he could
not be removed. In reply to which
torted: You must be mighty hard put
to use such argument" Judge Rich
ardson said: II don't think that would
hold good. Mr.. Lcakc. For ii police
officer were to go to Baltimore and be
convicted of stealing and serve his
term. according to your statement, no:
being guilty of the specific offcnse as
provided for the Constitution he could
not he removed. can't see that
In his argument Attorney Mcclure
said that the main question before
the court was the constitutionality
Of the custer law. All other matters.
he declared, could be adjusted without
difficulty. Continuing his argument
Mr. Mcclure said that IL the Mayor ha
this authority 10 suspend or remove
officers. it was merely cumulative and
not exclusive. Said Mr.. MCGUIRE:
What is misconduct in Office? Is the
Mayor the only means OF protection
to the people as to tho misconduct OF
policemcn State officers as we'll as