Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-09-06
CHANGE is LIKELY
IN POLICE TRIAL
BOARD TOMORROW
Continued from First Page

Continued from First Page)
I on The Commissioners for a change. 1t
was decided to take immediate action.
Charges that the trial board was being
influenced by statements from Maj.
Hesse and others of the District govern
ment in connection with Investigations.
were made before the board today by
Joseph D. Kelly. attorney for F, A..
Schenck. a policeman, accused OF mis-
conduct. Kelly told the board that II
the board did not grant privileges TO
his clients to which they were entitled
he would file an affidavit of prejudice
against every member of the board to
prevent them from sitting on any case
in which he appeared as counsel.
+ Assistant Corporation Counsel Walter
l.. Fowler. chairman OF the board re-
fused to grant the continuance on the
original ground that Kelly sought,
which was for the reason that anotner
angle of the case had not yet been
tried in Police Court. .,
However, he won a continuance when
he pointed out that his client had not
had two full days notice of the trial
as provided by the manual, and after
showing the board the provision In the
police manual q continuance was
granted until next Thursday.
Mr.. Fowler denied the board was
influenced by statements given out by
the major and superintendent. or by
articles appearing in the newspapers,
but that the board was there to see
that each man was properly brought
to trial He said he saw no reason
for passing over the case and told Mr.
Kelly that his statement regarding th3
influencing of the board was out OF
order. It was then that Kelly fired
back the threat to file affidavits Of
prejudice against members Of the trial
board.
COntinuances Granted.
A number of continuances were
granted during the morning, for va
rious reasons, and he again objected to
the hearing of the case of j. E. Mullen
of the seventh precinct. charged with
intoxication, when all of the witnesses
were not present, but the board ordered
the case to go ahead piecemeal.
On the other hand, Attorney Kelly
objected to a continuance of the case
against Officer E. w. Daniel, which al
ready had been continued three times.
1t was shown to the board that the ma
terial witnesses had consistently failed
to appear, and Kelly insisted that the
case should be tried. AS these were
prosecution witnesses, the board decided
to put the case over Kelly took excep-
ton to this.
The trial board heard the case of Po-
liceman E. S. Carrick on charges of
failing to pull police signal box. Sergt.
nf hn hfrfn
testified that the man failed to pull the
box three consecutive periods during a
trick of duty. Carrick testified that he
had lost a lot of sleep on account of
the hot weather and that he did fall
asleep and failed to pull the box on
the time specified. The case was taken
under advisement.
Policemen S. w. Rowland and John
A. Burgess were tried jointly, the for
mer on a charge of false arrest, and the
latter on a charge of false arrest and
violence. Lorenz Meinburg, 1926 Morse
street northeast. testified that he was
hit by baton thrown by one of the
policemen while near First street and
Jackson alley northeast, on July q.
| He pointed out Rowland as the one
who had grabbed his arm while stand
| ing at the patrol box, and caused
| w hlJuIC IlAo eye. MCAIDui
according to the testimony of the
officers. was arrested and charged with
being under the influence of intoxicat-
ing liquor.
Declare Man Was Staggering
Both officers, taking the stand in
their own defense. said that they had
observed Mr.. Meinburg staggering and
sent him to the station house for In
toxication. Officer Fl. B. Baker of the
sixth precinct testified that Meinbur2
was staggering when he was brought to
the station house, but Meinburg testified
that he had never taken a drink In his
life. He and his son, G.. T. Meinburg,
testified that the former had been sick
for some time prior to the arrest.
| Attorney Kelley moved that the
| charges be dismissed because of the fact
that Meinburg had pointed out Rowland
| as the man who had injured him.
whereas Burgess was charged with the
! offenSe. There was testimony of Mein-
burg himself that Burgess had done
: nothing at all
/ The case of E. w Daniels on charges
Of intoXication went over by direction
| of the board. until the prosecution wit
| nesseS could be brought to the board.
Attorney Kelley objected on the ground
| Of unfairneSs, saying that If the prose-
( cution witnesses did not have sufficient
| interest to appear before the board that
/ the case should be dismissed.