Perth Amboy evening news., 1921-01-04

Koyen-Most generally eat my lunes
in Bacha's.
Brovn-Did you do II that dsy1
Koyen-I was late.
Brown-Are you a drinking man,
Brown-DId you interfere with the
prosecutors work In connection Win
liquor violatfonsg
Koyen-No.
Brown-Did you tell Bacha anything
about tipping or
Koyen-No.
Brown-Did you tell Of conversations
| between you and Bacha2
Koyen-Yes.
Brown-Did you have any other lunch
con that day. during your period on duty
other than that glass OF orangesdef
Brown-sergesnt Long has stated that
when you were speaking to him. hrst
stated that you were In Jacko.s ana ba-
cha's saloons. and then stated that you
were only IN Bacha's safoop how do you
account for this?
Koyen-It was in the mayors office. !
understood him to say Bacha's, but later
changed my statement.
Brown-Change at the same timer?
Koyen-Yes. 1 told Of being in Ba-
cha's.
Brown-Thafs all.
GoIdberger-No questions.
CIark-where did you get the order
from, that you were entitled to twenty
minutes for luncheon?
nDltn"CdbI ht'th ~
orders, talked around between the patrols
men. ten or fifteen minutes.
Ciark-Never saw order issued to that
effect?
Koyen-No. didn't.
Clark-Do you realize that there are
specifications against you, oesioe tne
charge?
Clark-You really pleaded guilty to one
OF the charges. Your evidence Is such
that you plead guilty to one OF tins
- -f mill IA aha
charges. Do you understand that there
were four specifications beside the charger
Brown-So that we will not have any
MISUNDERSTANDING. what Is the spec,nca-
| tion, leaving the post without right!
Clark-There Is no question, the ohicef
goes on job and IL supposed to stay on
job. 1 think he misunderstood this spe.
cifcation.
Brown-what have you got to say
about time allowed for lunch?
Internationally take fifteen minutes.
always have lunch in Bacha's. generally
take fifteen minutes, all other patrolmen
Brown-The chief ought to explain Tins
allowed for lunch.
w enty minutes. men complain could not
get lunch In ten minutes. allowed rue
or twenty minutes, standing rule OF tns
department.
Burke-Today.
Brown-The men have to work q solid
| eight hours unless they can eat In .
ClsrkmNo rule promulgated to that eff
feet?
Burke-No,
Clark-Do you remember when the :
hour system was adopted?
Burke-Yes.
Clark-The police committee wanted
the change, you did not like the system.
committee agreed that II they were al,
lowed ten minutes for lunch. that is all
| IT,. 1911 al paIfQA n0rnnufffcT agreed
1t would not be put in written order. tins
patroimsn are supposed to work on their
own initiatives.
| Burke-Yes.
Clark-A notice of such Importance ale
lowing the men ten or fifteen minutes for
lunch. should be put on the bulletin
board.
Burke-The men all understand.
Joe Bacha was called to the stand by
the counsel for the defendant.
Brown-Without using anymore OF the
time of the council than Is necessary, tell
what happened on the 18th.
Bacha-About noon, | was just walk
ing UP to the door when Emil passed.
and / called him in. He went down to the
a drink. He took an orangeade. While
drinking he talked to Frank, went over
to his table and then walked out.
Brown-was there anything said about
booze men?
Bacha-No.
Brown-Dld you say what's that9"
Bacha-No.
Brown-How long was the officer ,r
your place?
Bacha-Five minutes.
Conference.-The questions.
Wester-If there is no further evidence
III move for adjournment to consider the
case.
Riedy--This is a committee session, ana
the case should not be decided until Mo-
day night.
Brown-Gentlemen, the only evidences
against the officer here. is the evidence
of Mr.. David and / desire TO point out
Just at his time that IL his evidence. .
true, it is very peculiar. the unnatural
condition that surrounds II all. 1t
peculiar that this officer. IL doing as Mr..
David says, thst he would go to these sas
voice say. lookout for the booze fel-
lows" and the like. No person. let alone
an officer would go in and In a steaithy
manner, in a loud voice say. booze men
are cominh'' in order to give a warning.
1 think Mr.. David's eye is a little green.
I think Mr.. David is like every other man
following the business, they get into the
rut and see guilt. This may be an idle
charge. but l want to tell you that evil
dence by a aipd detective or spies, should
be taken with the greatest care. the su-
preme court says. a person employed ir
money. Is naturally eager to obtain his
OBJECT. pu. is very likely to believe In A
case like this. where his employer has
the deepest interest. that his reward de-
penQS upon his tIOfts. Iudt cSiucHto
obtained from such a source. with the Sc
cur.ty of the citizen and the safety of
justice, that the court should examine II
with caution and try 1t with vigorous test.
So you have before you the evidence OF
a detective. called that of a spy, and YOU
are asked to convict the man on charges.
The officer admits being in Bacha's, he
could have colored 1t. by denying he was
In that place. He was on his post. In
view of the testimony of the chiefa nd
the other officers and the humane con-
ccDtion o. the work., they are entitled to
what they can eat and rink in the time
allowed, he was leaving his beat without
just cause IL he went in for a drink. l
think 1t was a just cause, to occupy just
I'VE minutes. he was entitled to twenty.
Brown-If it were about the hour Of
ten or eleven o'clock. about an unusual
time he went. but here you have It. the
detective came about IL. 1.-The officer
went in when invited, after working from
the day. In view of the testimony OF
several disinterested citizen witnesses,
nothing being alleged against them. es-
pecially the three men who were n Ba-
cha's place. and it was in this place that
the alleged conversation took place. This
overwhelming testimony shows that the
man. David's testimony is not true. just
tip the scale of evidence. IL the scale
stands even, the defendant should be
given a chance. You have the testimony
or a paid spy, against disinterested citt-
zens. submit that the officer is not
guilty Of charge No. 1 because he did not
leave his post without just cause, getting
refreshments he testified to; that he Is
not guilty of charge No. 2. If he had the
right to enter the building to get Il. did
not require him to. take the uniform of
to get I: and on Charge No. 3, there is
no evidence to show hat the patrolman
to decide. you have heard the evidence.