Evening star., 1922-09-01

clearing her of a charge OF insubordi-
nation. it added THESE objectionable
words. Justice HitZ has ordered
counsel for Mrs. Van Wrinkle to draw
up an order, which he has not yet
signed.
The District Comns ssioners, in re-
viewing the finding of the trial board,
disregarded the request of Roger J..
Whiteford, attorney for Mrs. van
Wrinkle, that the Objectionable words
be stricken from the finding. and af-
flrmed the verdict of the trial boar rd
in toto. Justice Hitz has decided to di-
rect the Commissioners TO strike out
everything in the, finding of the trial
board with the exception of that portion
which finds the officer mot guilty"
He will also direct that the record of
Mrs. Van Wrinkle in the police depar.-
ment be cleared of all reference to
the Objectionable, words. The costs
OF the proceeding will be assessed
against the Commissioners.
Mrs Van Wrinkle ran afoul of her
superior officers last March. when she
refused to surrender two young girls
that had fed from their parents in
New York and had come TO Washing
ton in boys clothes before she had
an opportunity to question them. In
spector Charles A. Evans had directed
the release of the girls to their par
ents and SO advised the matron of
the house of detention. but Mrs. Van
Wrinkle, claiming that the arrest came
within the purview of general or
der given to her by Maj. Daniel Sui
livan, chief of police. did not i'm
mediately obey the order of Evans.
Later the girls were turned over
to their parents.
Chrge Was Dismissed.
Mai Sullivan served a complaint,
supposed to have been instigated by
Inspector Evans, against Lieut. Van
Wrinkle for insubordination and a
trial was held before the police trial
board. Inspector Evans, there testi-
fed that he had no complaint agains.
Lieut. Van Wrinkle and regarded her
as a capable and conscientious officer
| The trial board acquitted the accused
| but took occasion to add the asper-
sion to which she objected.
When the Commissioners had ap-
! in May asked the District Supreme
Court to review the action of the
District Commissioners, and Justice
Hitz directed that all the proceed.
| ings in the case be presented to him
Through Assistant Corporation Coun-
! tended at the hearing July 23 that
! the controversy was a moot" ques.
ton. as the trial board had acquitted
| the accused and there was nothing
| for the court to review. The alleged
offensive statement added to the Ver-
! dict, williams claimed, was merely
an admonition by the properly con-
stituted disciplinary body OF the po.
| lice department, which has the right
| to say to members Of the force tha,
while the evidence does not sustain
fhe charge, a repetition of such action
might call for censure.
Bo.rd's Powers Limited.
In combating that statement Attor-
ney Roger J. whitford, for Mrs Var
Wrinkle. pointed out that the law does
| not empower the trial board to repri.
! mand or admonish. He declared thai
body may fine, suspend. assign extrs
hours or dismiss" but can do nothing
else. under the law. Justice Hitz tool
the matter under advisement at thai
| TIME.
| Text Of Order.
The order, az drawn and awaiting
the signature Of Justice Hitz, follows
This matter having come on tt
he heard upon q writ of certforari, tn,
netition OF the plaintiff, return ans
| answer of the Commissioners OF thu
District Of Columbia to the writ and
| the same having been duly argued b.
/ counsel for the respective parties, i
in ordered, adjudged and decreed:
w.-That all of the finding judg
| ment and determination OF the tria
hoard returned on the eighth day o
| April, 1922 in the matter of charge
= IE0nIhlu.d On 1age :. Colui1n 81