New-York tribune., 1920-06-11
Henry Waivers
Under CrilIilag
OF rosecutor
Inspector on Witness Stand
at Perjury Trial Seeks
to Explain His Errors
in Grand Jury Testimony
Defense Rests It's Case
Accused Police Official
Excuses Failure to Bring
Charges Against Smith

When the defense rested at II O'Clock
,ast night in the perjury trial Of Domi-
nick Henry, she suspended inspectors
story CT -sissed sga1-, by Assistant
Ss.s:1ict Attorney lanes Z. Smith to
protec. gamblers in the Fourth In
speclion District, of which Henry was
in command, appeared to have been
riddled by Deputy Attorney General
William Rand.
In cross-examination which began
at 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.
Mr. Rand asked Henry why he aad
not seen to it that Smith and those
who represented him were prosecuted
II they had made corrupt advances to
him, and why ne had waited two years
to make his charges public. Henry re-
piled 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 $4,000 to an assistant
district attorney, former police mag
istrate and reporter to prevent
prosecution for shooting two detec-
tives OF Henry's staff in a raid on a
gambling house in West Fifty-seventh
street, Mr.. Rand asked Henry whether
he had said at that time, when asked
if he had no other complaints to make
against Smith, that he had none.
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
"No, sir, | am not making any COM
plant"
Eyes" admitted Henry.
Mr.. Rand then read the following
know of any illegal action on the part
of the District Attorneys office? and
your answer 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
ly if he said he knew of no illegal ac
ton on the part of any one in the Dis
trict Attorneys Office, as he testified at
drawn up two atfidavits- against Smith
in March, 1918, two years back, as we'll
as four other affidavits.
On redirect examination, however.
W. Bourke Cochran, Henry's attorney.
brought out the fact that Henry had
testified that he had no other COM
plant against Smith before the ex-
traordinary grand jury because he
thought they were interested only in
the Rothstein case.
Comparison of Testimony
Mr.. Rand then questioned Henry on
testimony he had 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 house being
run in 1914 at Glendale, Long Island
while Henry was acting Inspector in
the Glendale district.
The story told by Henry in January
was that he visited house at North
Reach IN 1914 and found two white
girls seated at q table with two ne
groes. He separated them and then
called for the proprietor and told him
that he could run "white" house or
"black" house, but not one that was
"b'ack end white" as that was "demo.,-
alizing"
When Henry had admitted telling
this story to the grand jury in Janu-
ary. 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,
Mr.. 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 kind of cabaret and not
actually "brothel," as Henry had de-
scribed it before the grand jury.
Henry Is Hesitant
Referring to the testimony given bv
Henry that Joseph Hayman, a gambler,
alleged BY Henry to have introduced him
to Dennis Quinn, brother-in-la of AS
sistant District Attorney Smith, in
March, 1919, had told him on March II, f,
1919, that he had run gambling house
for Smith in the Ath Inspection District.
Mr.. Rand asked Henry why he had not
arrested Hayman for running "gam-
bling joint" and Henrys reply was that
In the first place the "joint" had been
operated in the 4th Inspection District
before he assumed command over il.
and that second, he did not regard the
admission Of man sufficient evidence
to present TO a court OF record,
Numerous disputes between counseI
occurred over the form of Mr.. Rand's
questions, and Justice Weeks was
called upon more than once to instruct
Henry to answer questions. Henry was
hesltant while being cross-examined
as contrasted with his assurance in the
afternoon, when questioned by his own
attorney, MIR. Cochran.
In his direct examination INSPECTOR
Henry had insisted that he was correct
In the statements made TO the grand
jury. e'""
henry repeated the substance Of tho
alleged conversation which took place
on February o, 1918, between Smith
and himself on the subject of protect
Ing christian gamblers" He in
astsd that James J. Hines. political
teacer OF the upper West Side, had in
sroduced them on that occasion and
nad been present. Hines testified
wednesday that he had not been
present.
Aefiates Meetings With Smith
Henry said that he met Smith ou
February IL, 1918, as had been nrc.
arranged by telephone, and ne reneated
tns conversation in which Smith ia al
ieYed TO have said that he had Distric.
Attorney swann In his cleft nocket ,,
30 that nothing nced he Fa., 80