The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1918-07-26

witness And I never went there
again"
In reference 10 the testimony of
Sergeant Jordan. he SAIL he had no
tdea why thaJ officer rad II III for
him" He had always tried 10 treat
every man on the force with cour-
tAsy and consideration,
In reply to a question from coun-
sci witness said that he had no Of
fcial power in the department. His
duties were clerical No police !unc-
ttons fell to his lot. He carried out
Instructions from the chief and from
the mayor, and was not in authority
over any menlbe~ OF the force,
In q word. Captain Pollock entered
q sweeping denial Of any insinuauon
that he had appeared IN his office in
m intoxica ted condition HIS explain
atoms of the occurrences referred TO
by witnesses were speclAc, and after
several had testified as TO his eff
aciency and his courteous manner and
cordial demeanor in his Transactions
Of business, the defense rested the
case.
Mrs Pollock did not take the stand.
II was felt by his counsel that the
frank and complete statement Of the
accused was sufficient
Those who appeared as character
witnesses were Sergeant ] II. Otey.
g. H. Tompkins II, T. Ezekiel, H G.
Dickerson. W N. watkins, former De
tective- Sergeant Forrest c. Bailey,
Captain Carlton Mccarthy
Another Specification.
As an added specification. the ac-
cusers presented a. B. Undertake,
Z resident OF Highland Park. who
stated that he had seen Capta!p Pol
s~i,
land Park.
This statement was denied by the
accused.
In rebuttai, the defense introduced
Policeman J. II. Ridgeway. with the
object OF showing that Sergeant Jor-
dan had an object in view or per
Uecuting" Captain Pollock. R!dgeway
was about TO tell that Sergeant Jor~
dan had told him thar II he did not
tell the grand jury ali he could about
Captain Pollock and Chief Sherry he
would be indicted, This evidence was
objected 70, and the objection was sus-
tanned, although later the prosecution
Introduced a. II. Flournoy brother
in-law OF R!dgeway. 10 testify S to
the high Character Of Sergeant Jor-
dan. It appears that Flournoy went
70 Jordan on his own initiative In
reference 10 the grand jury matter.
Other witnesses introduced by the
prosecution as character witnesses for
kergeant Jordan, whose veracity and
motives had been questioned by the
\ defense. were Frank l., Butler r. l..
Craig. William Jenkins r. " Evans,
And as character witnesses for Special
0n1cer John Powers. OF Murphys
\ hotel. the prosecution Introduced
James Phillips FRITZ siuerding and
\ Ssfsrred 10 J. T, Disney,
The question OF argument then
v arose. II was apparent that none a
4 the lawyers desired TO argue the case,
n II was conceded that the proceeding SIS
I@NeI~ not in the nature OF q trial bat
ynerely a hearing. and that the mayor
u 1aA heard the evidence. and would
NAotormins for himself after full con-
n1AorAtion. There We're no legal points
80 b. pointed out. as would have been
81 tAo case In jury trial
With the understanding that the
q eAss would be considered from a legal
standpoint and that all phazss OF II
MWould be looked into with that idea in
N1ew, Commonwealth Attorney Wise
#A~1thdrew his desire to srgus@aRG tho
II raao was submitted.
Sss The Strain case Will be taken up at
SDs9o o'clock tonight The Witnesses
n Gnmmoned are Policeman Bosquet and
@lDTmer Policeman Sweet
n was STATED that witnesses in the
M 1F1ucct case were hard TO get, and
~ uAt probably that case would be con-
N e4 GFsT - some sima next week