OCR Interpretation


The day book. (Chicago, Ill.) 1911-1917, April 25, 1913, Image 2

Image and text provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045487/1913-04-25/ed-1/seq-2/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

Mahoney then ordered the police
man who brought Stafford in, Dave
Carroll, a plain clothes man, to swear
out a warrant against Simon, charg
ing Simon with runninga disorderly
house.
This was done. Simon appeared
before Mahoney the next morning.
Mahoney asked him where bis place
of business was.
"11 South Halsted street," said
Simon.
"Well," said Mahoney, "I'll see that
you're put out of business within
three days."
Simon - immediately demanded a
change of yenue on the ground that
Mahoney was prejudiced and he
could not obtain a fair trial before
him.
The change of venue was allowed.
The case was then called before
JudgeN Scully, who then was sitting
in the criminal branch of the Munici
pal Court. .
When the circumstances were ex
plained to Judge Scully he promptly
dismissed the case against Simon.
"The charge against this man orr
the grounds presented," he said, "is
simply ridiculous. Any business man
might have done the same thing for
Stafford if he had not been cognizant
of Stafford's 'game.' "
' A few days later, the continued
case against Stafford, who, it must
be remembered, had pleaded guilty,'
was called by Judge Mahoney.
And Judge. Mahoney promptly dis
missed the case against the confessed
crook, because, he said, there was
no use in punishing him if "they were,
going to let Simon off like that."
In dismissing the case against
Stafford, Mahoney violated his oath
of office. In the case of a first offen
der who pleads guilty it is permissible
to. parolea first offender if he plead
guilty, but-it is not permissible, under
the law, to dismiss the charge against
him, which is what Judge Mahoney
did with Stafford.
Mahoney also gave a few samples
of Mahoney justice in the Desplaines
street court tdday;
Thomas Lyons, a union upholster
er, was brought before him charged
with disturbing the peace.
The evidence showed that Lyons
was a union man; that the upholster
ers' union to which Lyons belongs
now is on strike; that Lyons had been
on picket dutyfor the union; and
that, in pursuance of his duty, he had
spoken to a-'number of union men
who still were working in the John
M. Smyth Co. plant.
That was the whole extent of Ly
ons' "disturbance of the peajce," and
it was evident that his arrest had only
been made at the instance of the
Smyth Co.
Yet Judge John A. Mahoney fined
Lyons, whom Mahoney knew to have
a wife and two children, $25 and',,
costs.
The other instance of. Mahoney
justice in the Desplaines street court
today was even more simple.
A. H. Miller, a young laborer, had
gone out and got drunk last night,
as young laborers in the dreariness
of their existence, are occasionally
wont to do.
There was no evidence that Miller
had committed any crime.. He just
had been drunk, and had been picked
up by the police for his own good.
Judge -Mahoney fined Miller $100
and costs, and, since there is no
chance in'the-world of Miller paying .
such a fine, Miller must spend 213
days in the Bridewell.
Mahoney today had not much to .
say about his charges against Police
Captain Meagher nor his indictment
of the, entire West Side.
He was asked if he could pdiht .
to one of the murders "he says have
occurred in the last year, and which
have not been investigated byNthe
police. He says he could not, but that
if ayone looked up the records,' they
could find out about the muMers..
The decent element of- the West;
Side is rallying to the support of
Police Captain Meagher "against Ma
honey. --' v

xml | txt