Five Mile Beach weekly journal., 1920-10-15
Testimony Taken at Wildwood.
Last Saturday in a Number
of Wildwood Lawsuits
COMMISSIONERS REMOVE CITY CLERK
WINTERBURN

I AlhYOl was 4 ~ $3.50
Of the opposition CONFERENCE.-The
when they became aware that gambling
was going on and that automobiles
were fairly flying through the streets,
neither one OF them went to the mayor
to tell him about these thiGgs, noroffered
to counsel with him as to how these
alleged irregularities might be corrected.
On the contrary, without n word OF
warning-with zone fell swoop" as 1t
were-his department. OF public safety
was swept away from him and placed
in the hands of Commissioner Bright,
who was thus given control over the
police force Of the city. Shortly after
this occurrence these same two commits
sioners crowned Officer William 8.
Crawford as chief Of police. When
Officer Crawford was summoned to
testify last Saturday ex-Judge Cole
asked him if he took orders from the
mayor. He replied that he did not
He was next asked if he took orders,
then, from Oliver Bright. He hesitsted
considerably before answering this
question, but finally answered that he
had not taken any mandates from the
dual head of finance commissioner and
director Of public safety. "From
whom, then, do you accept instructions
or mandates ?" queried Attorney Cole
"Well. 1 don't pay any attention to
any one in particular, answered Officer
Crawford. II just go ahead and do
what is right and for the best interests
of the city," This attitude of the ap-
pointed chief of police as not recog-
nizing any head or authority higher
than himself evoked much astonish-
ment, comment and merriment.
To the surprise Of everybody present
the prosecution did not offer any testi-
mony in rebutta1 of the charges made
against the mayor by the witnesses for
the defense. Either the prosecuting
attorney must have considered the
reasons advanced IS being so trivial or
of such a fiimsy character as to be
unworthy of his notice, or else be may
have considered all this matter irrele-
want. The prosecution may challenge
the right OF these majority commits
s%ioners, on strictly technical grounds,
to legislate the mayor out Of existence.
circumstances would seem to point to
this mode of attack. If they have
valid charges of neglect or other in.
efficiency to bring against the mayor,
the prosecution would not likely deny
the right of the pair of commissioners
to bring charges against him, even to
the extent of impeachipg him and at
tempting to recall him or other wise
remove him from office; but to take
away from him suddenly and without
a hearing or a trial the office to which
he was elected by the people, and of
their OWL initiative-this1 radical proee-
dure the attorney for the mayor will
likely fight "tooth and nail' on basic
or statutory grounds.
In obtaining evidence to support the
affirmation of alleged contempt of
court on the part of Oliver Bright, the
city clerk was asked if the said de
fendsnt had exercised any of the duties
belonging to the department of public
after the serving of the writs of
certiorari, to contest the legality If the
transfer of powers previously referred
to. The clerk replied that he had; that
the commissioner of revenue and fin
had approved a number of bills
for police service. These bills were
for-siXteen in cumberland
in evidence as having been
passed upon by the defendant at a date
subsequent to the process of serving
the writs of certiorari on the commits
sioners. The minutes of the commits
.sioners' meeting Oh the date when these
bills were entered and approved were
also submitted in evidence. One police
bill received more than passing notice.
Mr.. Bright vas asked if he had ever
approved any police bills for policeman
Albert l.. Sherlock. "Positively not,u
answered the witness. He was then
shown a police bill on which his sigma
ture was alleged to appear. This was a
bill for two weeks service as acting
chief, at the rate of $3.50 per month
The amount on this bill was $55 for a
half months pay. Before being shown
the name or the amount on this bill
Commissions Bright admitted that the
signature on it, as approving 1t, was
his; but when later shown the amount
of the bill and the name of the payee
he disputed or denied the alleged fact
that be had O.Kd. such a bill. When
pressed by Attorney Cole to give an
explanation of how such a bill could
be extant then, Mr.. Bright was under
to state that he must have signed
the bill in blank, thus providing an