Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-08-21
DRY CASES
ARE ASKED BY HART
Files Show 200 of | 900 Rum
Charges Since March,
Were Thrown Out.
Continued From First Page)

In a letter to the commanding Of
ficers of the fourth. sixth, eighth and
! tenth precincts, Maj. Pratt said:
I ut has been explained in detail from
time &c time from these headquarters
! that it is waste of the depar ner is
time and effort to take cases to court
that cannot be sustained and in addi-
ton, the various judges at the Police
Court and the United States district at
Ltorney have expressed in no uncertain
terms the type Of evidence required in
order to secure convictions, yet ap-
parently little attention has been paid
to same by certain members of this
| department. H.'
| 5 I'm one instance it was found that
one John Delany, colored, of 80 M
street southwest, who conducts fish
and crab market at the above address.
was arrested by Pvts. r. j. Barrett and
j. Auhenberg of the fourth precinct
and charged with illegal possession Of
| liquor This charge, being made as the
| result of visit made by the officers
to the above place, In my opinion was
! Justif1able, as 1t was place of busi-
ness therefore public in which the
| officers had every right to enter and
inspect in the manner in which same
was done.
| I'm the case of Lee White, colored,
| OF 600 Fairmont street, who was ar
rested by Lieut.. John Fowler, Precinct
Detective Jones and Pvt. r. F. McCarty
of the tenth precinct, Lieut.. Fowler
stated that while making his rounds
with the above named officers, they
visited above premises; that when they
arrived at the door 1t was open and
they observed Lee White put some Jars
Of liquor into trap at the head Of the
| staircase.
In this instance the officers should
have realized that this was a private
home and that after witnessing. what
| they claimed to have seen, which I'M
itself constituted sufficient evidence
from which they could have secured a
| warrant and made legal arrest, should
| have applied for the same before TAX
ing the action they did.
| These men are all experienced Of
| tlcers, having had many cases before
the courts. and should have realized
that their action m the premises would
result in refusal by the United States
| district attorney to issue the necessary
papers. They are warned that this was
not an example of the kind of police
service expected of them.
I'm the case of Leonard Roscoe Har-
| ris, colored of 2l24 Eighth street, who
was arrested at the above address by
Private William McEwen and charged
with the illegal possession Of liquor, the
| officers who were patrolling their beat
about 2:45 am. heard and saw through
| an open window Of 2124 Eighth street
| Gladys Davis and Julia Hughes swear
ing and fighting. -e..-s-'
On the appearance Of the officers,
who entered the house, Leonard r. Har-
riS grabbed a half gallon of liquor from
shelf in the kitchen and attempted to
dump same. Gladys Davis and Julia
Hughes were charged with disorderly
conduct and forfeited IS In Police Court.
While this was case in which
the officers entered a house (private
DWELLING, they did so in the proper
discharge of official duty, and having
witnessed violation of law with respect
to the possession of liquor. n my
opinion, took proper action"
Two Privates Are Upheld.
Relative to James Ray Haden and
William Gabel colored, of 1913 Sew
enth street. who were arrested by Pvts.
William McEWen and Herbert M.
Smith of the eighth precinct at the
! above address, which Is lunch room.
| public place, and was visited by the
officers in the proper performance of
their duty. their action, after having
observed what they considered q vio-
lation Of law, was, in my opinion, JUS
| tifiablea
james j. Barry Of 100 G street,
proprietor of a near-beer saloon at the
above address, was arrested by Pvt
j. A. Sullivan, Sergt. H. G. Blackman,
Precinct Detective y. r. Boxwell and
| Pvt. E. c. O'Meara of the sixth pre-
cinct at the premises referred to, which
the officers had visited In the proper
performance of their duty, as same Is
public place. and the action taken
by them in investigating why a col
| ored man ran from behind counter
and jumped out of a window, at the
time the lights being turned out and
In the investigation having found
whisky on the premises, was justifiable.
In the case of Daisy Bumbry and
Mary Scott, colored, of 721 Fourth
street, who were arrested by Pvt. E. E.
Thompson of the sixth precinct, the
premises in question being a private
home, the offlcer states that while
! patrolling his beat he observed a white
man enter, whereupon he walked up to
the door, which was opened by Mary
| Scott, and he could see Daisy Bumbry
in plain view from the street In the act
of pouring liquor from a half-gallon jar
into glass. r.
Could Have Avoided Criticism.
1.-THE ofIicer should have had in mind
LLlhI b1llS was y PI1VdJC oWGlllIlk anu
that 1t was suspicion on his part that
the liquid being poured from the half
| gallon jar was intoxicating and pos
/ sessed in violation OF Nlaw. Had he, as
result of his observation, applied to
the United States attorney for the is
suance Of warrant, thus legaliZing his
! act, the department would have avoid
ed criticism. He is reminded that the
best evidence of good police work is the
1 sustaining nf SIlph &c F,aada
before the courts.
Robert v. Jones and his wife, Rose
| Mary Jones, both colored of 204 B
| street. were arrested in their home at
| the above address by PvtS. j. L. Mason
and A. r. @. Houch of the sixth pre-
cinct, the fact in the case being that
the above officers applied for a war
rant for Robert v. Jones and his wife
on the charge of keeping a disorderly
house, and that after such evidence as
they presented had been offered the
| United States district attorney refused
| the warrant, yet, regardless of such re-
| fuSal, the officers then conducted q raid
on a private home and without such
| legal authority or the necessary evil
dence to justify the issuance by the
| United States attorney of a warrant in
the case, indicated resentment on their
/ part OF the action OF the district at
torney IN making such refusal The in
spector reports further that Pvts Mason
and Houch from their statement knew
! they were entering private home against
the order Of the department and with
| out proper warrant
| I'm this instance both officers are
reprtmanded and warned that the dis
regarding Of the orders of the depart
nient in the future viii result in dis
| ciplinary action before the Trial Board,
a notation of this reprimand and warn
| ing to be made on their oflcial records
while the department desires the
fullest and most efficient enforcement
! of all laws, yet at the same time 1t must