New Britain herald., 1925-09-12
SchOll Dismissed After Long
 Hearing by Council
SEVERAL COMPLIMENTS
Casey Brothers Testify to Disturb snce Caused by Oncious Patrol. man--Considcration of Case Ends After Midnight This Morning.
(sperial to the Herald.

charged from the police force last night by the city council on charges unbecoming his office, after a hear. ing which began at 7:30 o'clock and ended shortly after midnight. At torney Robert J. Stack represented Raymond J. Casey, William r. Casey, Ludger J. Hamel, Biazi Per fetto and Ebert J. Stone. all Of whom preferred charges against the officer. Judge Epaphroditus Peck represented Scholl. That the vote to discharge was not unanimous was indicated when the councilmen re- turned 10 the hearing chamber after retirement for short period after the closing of the evidence 10 con- sider the facts brought out.
 City Court Room Crowded
 When the hearing began, the city court room was crowded with wit nesses and others. The reading of the charges was referred to City Clerk Thomas B. Steele. who also administered the oath to the wit nesses. Following the introduction of the charges, Judge Peck and At torney Stack spared for several moments over technicalitics, the judge saying that the bringing of an officer before the council In such manner was most serious offense and therefore the evidence should be kept strictly to the written charges.
 Desk Officer Tcsti(ics
 The first witness called was Off, cer John C. Mclaughlin, who was desk officer at the police station on August s, the night that the con- troversy occurred at the Maple End store between Officer Scholl and the Casey brothers. The officer tcsti- fled that he had been informed of the incident by the Caseys and that he had called the officer at nearby call box and asked for an explana- tion inasmuch as no complaint had been made to the police station at the time that the desk officer had been called by MT, Casey or his brother. Later written report was copied into the police blotter by the desk officer. Here Judge Peck ob- jected, saying that the police blotter could not be accepted as exhibit "A as "who knew whether the re- port In the box was exactly the one presented by Officer Scholl?" This difficulty was remedied at once by the production by Officer McLough- lin of the original report as written by MT. Scholl and all objections were withdrawn by Judge Peck.
 Casey Voice Complaint
 Raymond J. and William F. Casey. original complainants against Officer Scholl told of the events on the night of August &, that finally eliminated in the hearing of last night. They told the board that both were at the store on North street, conducted by them and that a motor car, owned by the brothers had been left parked, astraddle of the gutter with two wheels on the grass space between the curb and the sidewalk. This position was occu- pied for at least four months pre- vious to August S, according to Casey brothers, as 1t had been noted by them that the space for motor cars to pass, when trolley was standing at the terminal at the point, was limited and in the interests of the travelling public, they had been accustomed to park their car on what they considered their own property. Not on the night n question or on any other night did tho car present an obstruction 10 the sidewalk.
 Officer Schol had been assigned to the Northside patrol on August s and objected to the Casey method of parking the car. The controversy ended by his instructing both Casey brothers to appear at the police sta ton on the following Monday morn- ing.
 Later the same night Motorcycle Officer Edgar A. Norton, on his way home, was asked 10 step in at the Casey store by Officer Mclaughlin Ito investigate the turmoil. The off Ger found nothing of an alarming nature but his presence saved the Caseys from going to Jail, as they expressed it last night at the hear ing, because at the hearing on Mon- day morning before Prosecuting At torney James T. Mather. Officer Schols version of the affair pre- sented an astounding array of charges, Attorney Mather Criti- cized the Casey brothers at the time, according to their story last night, for their insults to the officer. That is where Officer Norton saved the day for the Caseys as he refuted the Scholl testimony with facts at his disposal that the charges against the Caseys were thrown out.
 When the Casey testimony was completed, Judge Peck thought that sufficient evidence to discharge the officers had not been presented and Attorney Stack said he had plenty more to offer.
 A written response 10 the charges preferred against the officer was presented by Judge Peck. making general denial.
 Report Questioned
 The report on the police blotter, made by Officer Scholl that on his second trip past the Casey store, after the controversy of shortly be- fore midnight, a crowd of men had passed remarks about him, was sharply questioned by a series of witnesses presented by Attorney Stack. Officer Edgar A. Norton was
 (ConHnued on Fourth Page.l