New Britain herald., 1926-06-08

questioning WAS ruled improper and the attorney had an exception noted in the record.
 Immediately following this for mality, McDonough asked that the charge of insubordination be spe- oifically proved
 Why the man talked back to his superior" Chairman Paiewski an- swered.
 DO the commissioners claim there is no justification for talking back to his superior?" McDonough in- quired.
 Absolutely none" was the em- phatic reply of Commissioner Ban. nan.
 The question as to what actions constituted, in the mind of Sergeant Rival, acts of insubordination, was next put. The sergeant replied that Hayes had answered him back, would not go into the captains office when ordered to do so, and would not leave the police station until forcibiy elected by Detective Thomas Feeney
 | Commissioner Bannan suggested that, since the man was not on duty or in uniform, matters pertaining to drinking be excluded out of fair ness to Hayes. The fact to be de- termined, the commissioner pointed out, was whether or not Hayes had been insubordinate and since intoxi- cation was not charged he thought that a collateral issue, but not of sufficient importance to go into.
 Lawyer McDonough said Hayes had not a single drink and could prove it, therefore he was anxious to have every phase of the case gone into thoroughly.
 Chamberlain Raps MCDonough Commissioner Chamberlain cen- sured McDonough for the tone Of his inquiries. declaring the board was allowing considerable latitude to the accused man when, according to the charter, the board is the "sole judge" of whether he should remain on the department.
 Here McDonough remarked he felt Hayes should have every op- portunity to prove he was justified in answering back Sergeant Rival,
 Chairman Pajewski turned to the attorney and said:
 Do you mean to say it is all right to snap back at a desk ser geant?"
 We allege desk sergeant back ed up prosecuting attorney who was using 8 young supernumerary policeman pretty rough" the attor- ney answered.
 McDonough brought out that policeman's right 10 have a trial and Cross-eXamine witnesses has been established as law in Connecti- cut through the case of Pinkerton vs. the City of New Haven. In reply to questions it was brought out that Prosecutor Woods first became involved In the argu- ment when he refused 10 put down the charges as ordered by Hayes,
 Sergeant Rival was asked if h. asked two officers to smell Hayes breath, and why he did so when he had already been told by Hayes that he had one drink.
 "I wanted witnesses" was the reply.
 Detective Feeney was next called to testify Hc rccited details cor roborating what Sergeant Rival had told the commission and then out lined the part he played in the in- cidcnt.
 Hayes Elected By Force
 Fconey said he took Hayes to a corner and advised him against be- ing abusive 10 his superiors. He also accused Hayes of having had drink. When Sergeant Rival asked him 10 smell Hayes breath, the lat ter replied Feenoy had no authority to do so, Feeney testified. The de- tective said he was obliged 10 use force 10 put Hayes ont of inc sta ton when asked to do so by Ser geant Rival. On this occasion he smcllcd Hayes breath and found strong traces of liquor, he testified;
 The detective said Hayes admit ted having had one drink, Only "nice" words passed between Woods and Hayes while Fconey was pres ent, the witness said, and he dcclar- ed the accused patrolman was the only one who was boisterous.
 When questions put by the attor. ney were objected 10 by the com 1 mission, McDonough answered!
 'Feeney is testifying how bad the l officer is, I want to show some one l else is pretty bad"
 Cross-examination Of the witness | was lengthy, consisting mostly of i Iepeatings of the direct testimony.