New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1920-06-11
Henry Waivers
Under Grilling
OF Prosecutor
Inspector on Witness Stand
ut Perjury Trial Seeks
to Explain His Errors
in Grand Jury Testimony
Defense Rests Its Case
Accused Police Official
Excuses Failure to Bring
Charges Against Smith

When the defense rested at II o'clock
last night in the perjury trial of Domi-
nick Henry, the suspended inspectors
story of alleged offers by Assistant
District Attorney James E. Smith to
protect gamblers in the Fourth In
spection District, of which Henry was
in command, appeared to have been
riddled by Deputy Attorney General
William Rand.
In a cross-examination which began
at 8 o'clock Henry was bombarded
with questions based upon testimony
that he had given before the ex-
traordinary grand jury in January,
when he said he had no complaints to
make gainst Smith. and subsequent
testimony given by him to the grand
jury in March, when he made numerous
charges. Z
Mr.. Rand asked Henry WHY he had
not seen to it that Smith and those
who represented him were prosecuted
il they had made corrupt advances to
him, and why he had waited two years
to make his charges public. Henry re-
rlied that he did not regard it as his
duty to do so after he had made his
report to the Police Commissioner.
Henry Testimony Quoted
Questioning Henry on his testimony
before the extraordinary grand jury
on January %, 1920, that Arnold Roth
stein had paid $32, 900 to an assistant
district attorney, a former police mag
istrate and g reporter to prevent
prosecution for shooting two detec-
tives of Henry's staff in a raid on a
gambling house in West Fifty-seventh
he had said at that time, when asked
if he had no other complaints to make
against Smith, that he had non
The testimony as read by Mr.. Rand
reads: "Have you any other complaint
to make against Assistant District At
torney Smith ?" and your answer was
mo. sir, ] am not making any COM
plant"
Yes" admitted Henry.
Mr.. Rand then read the following
from the same testimony: "Do you.
know of any illegal action on the part
of the District Attorneys office? and
your nsw was "No. sir"
Henry admitted he had been asked
this question and had made the an
swer, Rand leaving the inference with
the jury that Henry had testified false
~ if he said he knew of no illegal &C
tion on the part of any one in the Dis
trict Attorneys Office, as he testified at
the afternoon session hat he had
drawn up two afidavits against Smith
in March, 1918. two years back, as we'll
as four other affidavits.
On redirect examination, however,
" pN,~1n ConEoo uon~ o%IAr~1,
brought out the fact that Henry had
testified that he had no other COM
plant against Smith before the ex-
t%raordinary grand jury because he
thought they were interested only in
the Rothstein casa
Comparison sf Testimony
Mr.. Rand then questioned Henry on
testimony he haA given before the
extraordinary grand jury in January
as compared with testimony in March
in testifying about the alleged activi-
ties Of Frederick W: Whiting. said to
be secretary of the Committee of Four
teen. in connection with a house being
run in 1914 at Glendale. Long Island,
while Henry was acting Inspector in
the Glendale district.
The story old by Henry in January
wa that he visited q house at North
Reach in 1914 and found two white
girls seated at a table with two ne
groes. He separated them and then
called for the proprietor and told him
that he could run a white" house or
"black end white" as that was "demor-
alizing."
When Henry had admitted telling
this story to the grand jury in Janu-
airy. Mr.. Rand read to him from the
testimony in March when Henry said
that he was not certain whether he
had called the proprietor.
On redirect examination, however,
MIR. Cochran introduced a report which
Henry submitted to the then Commits
sioner of Police Arthur Woods telling
of investigating this place, which is
described as a kind of cabaret and not
actually a "brothel," as Henry had de-
scribed it before the grand jury.
Henry Is Hesitant
Referring to the testimony given by
Henry that Joseph Hayman. a gambler,
alleged by Henry to have introduced him
to Dennis Quinn, brother-in-law of As
sistant District Attorney Smith, in
March. 1919, had told him on March II,
1919, that he had run a gambling house
for Smith in the 4th Inspection District,
Mr.. Rand asked Henry why he had not
arrested Hayman for running a gam
bling joint" and Henry's reply was that
in the first place the "%joint" had been
operated in the 4th Inspection District
before he assumed command over it.
and that second, he did not regard the
admission OF a man sufficient evidence
10 present to a court of record,
Numerous disputes between counsel
occurred over the form of Mr.. Rand's
questions, and Justice Weeks was
called upon more thar once to instruct
henry TO answer questions. Henry was
hcsitant while being cross-examined,
as contrasted with his assurance in the
afternoon, when questioned by his own
attorney, Mr.. Cochran.
In his direct examination Inspector
henry had insisted that he was correct
IN the statements made to the grand
jury.
Henry repeated the substance Of the
riicGed conversation which took place
"a February 9, 1918, between Smith
-nd himself on the subject of protect
,nS Christian gamblers" He in
stated that James j. Hines, political
ieacer o. the upper West Side, had in,
them on that occasion and
haa been present. Hines testiGeJ
Wednesday, that he had not been
present.
ketiafrs Meetings With Smith
Henri said that he met Smith nm
February e, 1918. as had been nyc.
arranged b. telephone, and he reneated
~ forye-sation in which Smith ia nj,
'FBec 20 aass said that ne had Distric,
rstorney Swami in mis- "icft pocket
- 1nf ---