| OCR Text |
Show IWKSIIIIAI'IIIH 11 k pott to T1IIC ill AY OH. Yesterday his Honor, Mayor Wells, as chief ollieer of tho cily, held all ex-iminatioii ex-iminatioii into the ease of ollieer ,T. Smith and tho soldier, Michael Heifer, Hei-fer, referred to already onco or twice 111 tho UtltAl.P. Major Hempstead appeared, mul inquired of tho Mayor if ho was sitting u.i chief of tho police department, ns a committing magistrate, magis-trate, or as a justice of tho peace, staling sta-ling that a warrant had been issued for iho ollieer, which would bring tho case, as an olfenso against tho laws, before mother court. His Honor replied that ho was silting in tho capacity ol Mayor, iuquiiing into a charge against an ollieer of tho force. Tho examination examina-tion was then proceeded with. C. Livingston, Stanley Taylor, Michael Mi-chael Geiger, Samuel Shane, Gustavo llenriod, Wui. ltydo and John Wardrobe Ward-robe were severally sworn and examined. exam-ined. The evidence, particularly thai of Mr. Wardrobe, showed plainlj enough that the shooting was simply to frighten Geiger; but on tho point of striking tho man there was some contradiction in statement, tho soldier sol-dier alleging that ho had given himself him-self up and had asked not to be struck, tho officer saying' the soldier had turned ou hiiu when ho struck him, and Mr. Taylor, who was with them at the lime, declaring that the seizure and blow were simultaneous, tho pistol de scending as tho officer seized tho soldier sol-dier by the collar. It was shown that the officer had accompauied the soldier to three places that the latter might obtain security, that in so accompanying accompany-ing him tho officer showed himsell willing to assi?t the soldier to regain his liberty instead of being actuated by a spirit of malice, and that the blow was evidently the result of sudden passion at a prisoner attempting thus to eseapo from him. Mayor Wells said there was no law requiring a policeman to go around with a prisoner to aid him in procuring bail, though it was frequently done, but simply as an accommodation to those under arrest. It was wrong in the prisoner who had been thus accommodated ac-commodated to attempt an escape under such circumstances, when he had every reason to believe he would soon : be released on security. The Mayor further said it was the duty of an officer offi-cer to hold his prisoner by all lawful means, and to prevent his escape. In firing the pistol he held it was very evident there was no intention to do injury, nor was there any harm done, turther than a breach or the ordinance, which forbids the firing of arms within j the municipal boundaries, though an innocent person might have been injured. He said the pistol should be resorted to only in the last extremity, where there was deadly bodily peril threatening, and when it was absolutely necessary to use it in self-defeee; and that nothing would justify the use of deadly weapons only this. The policeman should aho have had better control of himself, when he recaptured re-captured the prisoner, than to strike him as he had done. Policemen must understand that they have no right to abuse prisoners anywhere, and though prisoners often become abusive and violent, especially when under the influence in-fluence of drink, policemen are required re-quired to exercise greater control over their tempers and exert no more violence vio-lence than is necessary to secure them. The sentence of the Mayor was that officer Smith be fined in $25 for the infraction of the city ordinance by firing fir-ing his pistol on the street without ab solute necessity tor it; and io tor striking the prisoner with his pistol after he had secured him; officer Smith to be hell in custody until the fines were paid. The Mayor also thought that Mr. Geiger was deserving of a heavier fine than had been imposed upon him for the offense for which he was taken into custody. We have not said much about this case up to the present, for we knew erroneous statements had been made which a proper investigation would refute. The simple fact is, a prisoner tried to escape from an officer who had been obliging him, and the officer fired on the ground to scare the prisoner into stopping, and when the prisoner was stopped he m a moment of ungovernod temper struck him. The soldier said the officer used bad language and said he ought to have kil.ed him; the officer denies this, and Mr. Taylor the only person present pres-ent sustains the officer's statement. It was an infraction of city law to fire tho pistol, and harm might have been done by it to innocent parties although no injury was intended; and it was an infraction of law to strike the prisoner in a moment of anger. But we, think, considering all circumstances, when all the evidence is before us, and viewing the matter dispassionately, that the fines imposed by Mayor Wells were too severe, unless it is determined to rigidly rigid-ly enforce the law against using firearms fire-arms in the city, and to make an example ex-ample for assaults upon the person. It is no uncommon thing for a man to be fined say $10 or $15, who has no excu e for firing a pistol except wantonness, want-onness, while this officer had the idea that allowing a prisoner to escape was a serious matter. But it is to be hoped that all, offi-, offi-, cers, citizens and soldiers, will pay attention at-tention to the Mayor's words, and that each and all will seek to be conservators of the public peace. |
