Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-12-23
.HEDR|CK ACQU|TTAL
MAY Be APPEALED
Woman Voters Undecided on
Pressing Case Against
Arlington Supervisor.
BY LESTER N. INSKEEP,
stan Correspondent Of The star

ARLINGTON COUNTY COURT
HOUSE, Va, December 2S.-That there
is possibility of an appeal to the rul-
ing OF Judge Alexander T. Browning OF
Orange in dismisSing charges of NAL
feasance and misfeasance against Su-
pervisor B. M. Hedrick of Arlington
County was made known today by Mrs.
Ruby @. Simpson, president Of the Or
ganiSed Women Voters Of Arlington
County, by whom the charges against
Hedrick were brought
Judge Browning's decision followed
three and half hours Of arguments IN
the court house at Culpeper yesterday,
where the prosecution attempted TO
show malfeasance or misfeasance in the
installation Of water and sewers in
Waycroft Subdivision, of which He'd
rick Is managing director. In g state
ment ON the case today, Mrs. SIMPSON
says: --. ou,>oo,
to Judge Browning's decision. and wnlle
such action is possible, no decision mas
been reached in that regard.
Feel Basic Contentious Upheld.
"The request of the Organized Wom-
en- Voters, original petitioners, to Judge
Walter T. Mccarthy of the local circuit,
that a rule be issued If the judge
thought there was sufficient reason, was
granted. That petition stated, we
believe there have been irregularities In
the installation of water and sewerage
| in Waycroft.' Judge Browning stated
there had been irregularities, and he
! held Supervisor Hedrick responsible
| the same as If he were the sole owner
of the Arlington Investment Corpora
] ton, for which water and sewers were
! installed. After so finding, the judge
shown by the evidence were sufncient
| to constitute malfeasance or Tnisfea-
sance, and he dismissed the rule.
THE Judge stated in the court room
that he felt the matter had needed
| investigation and that there was no
question as to the sincerity of the petit
| TONERS or Commemorative Attorney
! william G. Cloth In bringing the ac-
ton. We feel that the basic conten-
| tions of the organization have been up
held in that Judge Browning found IL
regularities existed"
In his argument before Judge Brown
| ing, Commonwealth's Attorney Wilson
M. Farr of Fairfax County, chief de-
Tense counsel, stated that he believed
the action against Hedrick had been
| brought in good faith, but without ade-
quate information. II this information
had been in the hands Of the petit
TONERS, he said, he believed the action
would never have been brought.
Farr pointed out that the original
petition, which was sworn to on June
| %. alleged that no attempt had been
made to collect, whereas the records
showed that the note in payment for
| the installations was rendered and ac-
cepted on April Is, but that the
amended petition went on to state 1t
did not make any difference whether
1t had been paid or not.
Says Accusation Was Changed.
The gist Of the first petition, he de-
| clared, was that the $9,175 in Ques-
| ton had never been paid, which should
have been verified by an examination
of the records Of the Board of County
| Supervisors. When 1t was found that
this declaration was in error, he said,
the accusation was changed to show
| that the water and sewerage should
never have been installed.
After listening to the arguments Of
counsel Judge Browning stated the fol-
| lowing in dismisSing the charges against
| Hedrick:
Arlington County Is unique in that
it is the smallest county in the State.
1t has three magisterial districts and
three supervisors, OF which Hedrick Is
one. At the time of the motion asking
that a rule be issued against him He'd
rick was also managing director of the
Arlington Investment Corporation,
which owned and was developing q
subdivision.
Independently Of the statutes, it is
against public policy for any one to
contract with the municipality Of which
he Is an of1cer This Is applicable
substantial public policy forbids that a
| stakeholder contract with the nfunic-
| ipality Of which he Is an oficer.
I'm this case Hedrick stands in the
same position as If he were the indivi-
dual owner, in that he was q stock.
holder, director and manager.
Court Surprised 1t Delay.
"In the installation Of water and
sewers In Waycroft there were undoubt-
eddy irregularities during June and July,
| 1929, and as late as December, 1929.
| There were no notes received for this
money during this time and conse-
| quently there was no lien for these
| expenditures
zone witness said that he thought
| Cloth had purposely delayed closing
this matter, but that testimony did not
impress the court, who thinks that
Cloth did his duty. Cloth was correct
in refusing an undated note. I think
in occupying the position that he did,
| Hedrick should have been very diligent
| in closing the matter.
THE delay Is sought to be explained
through negligence in the county en-
gineer's ONCE. The court thinks It
strange that in county Of $4,000 In
habitants, with the amount Of clerical
force that there Is in the engineers
ONCE, this delay should have occurred
| there to the extent that it did. I, how
ever, accept that as true and while there
was an irregularity do not take it as
malfeasance or misfeasance."
Cloth took no part In yesterdays
proceedings, all Of the arguments for
the prosecution being made by Burnett
Miller of Culpeper, who was employed
by the Organized Women Voters as the
local prosecutors colleague In the case
Assisting FAR in the defense was Capt
Crandal Mackey. Edgar w. Humphrey
also appeared as one Of Hedrick's
counsel, but did not take an active part
! in the proceedings.
The taking of testimony in this case
occurred early in September, but the
arguments were delayed for various rea-
sons until yesterday.