Brooklyn Times-Union/1888/All Witnesses Notified
All Witnesses Notified
That The Court Of Sessions Will Not Convene At Riverhead.
Important Cases Waiting Trial. The Snowstorm Causes the Delay. Who are to be Tried. No Further Notice to be Given.
A notice was sent out by order of Judge Young on Saturday evening last to the end that the County Court and Court of Sessions would not convene this morning at Riverhead, but would convene next Monday morning. The snowstorm was the reason for postponement. District Attorney Wilmot M. Smith has notified all the witnesses he could by telegraph to this effect, and instructions have been sent to the various station agents on the Long Island Railroad by Superintendent Topping, to notify all ticket buyers going to Riverhead of the postponement of the trials. A number of criminal cases are on the calendar, and a number are awaiting the attention of the Grand Jury, among them being:
- The people against Edward Johnson, colored, of Smithtown. Edward is to be tried for carving Emily Floyd with a razor. Johnson's wife eloped with a man named Smith, and they became boarders in Mrs. Floyd's house. The deserted husband went there to take Smith's life, but did not find him. He, however, encountered his faithless wife and inflicted one or two wounds on her, when the landlady jumped between man and wife and was badly cut up. He has been in Riverhead Jail ever since.
- The people against Bill Rhodes, colored, of Bellport. This Bill is a bad one and will be tried for attempting to murder his wife. She was cut in several places with a razor that finally broke off in one of her wrists. With the piece of razor still sticking in her wrist the wife, in company with her brother, drove four miles to Dr. L. S. Edwards' office in Patchogue to have him draw the razor blade from its imbedded place. The doctor was compelled to use his largest forceps and main strength to draw this razor and with its withdrawal a stream of blood spurted to his office ceiling and the woman's brother fell in a dead faint on the grass outside the office and remained unconscious for a half hour. This all happened during the past summer.
- The people against Walter Miller, of Huntington. Walter is indicted for grand larceny, and his only hope will be to convince the jury that he is innocent.
- The people against Nat Dominy. Mr. Dominy was a public officer in Easthampton, and when brought to the bar of justice his lawyer will try and make the District Attorney work very hard to prove the accused man guilty of forgery. Nat was at Patchogue last week and stopped at one of the principal hotels.
- The people against Leopold Lang, of Breslau. This man, it will be remembered, was arrested on complaint of Supervisor Hooper on the confession being made by Lang's wife that her husband wanted his hotel burned. It is alleged that he attempted to burn his hotel so as to secure the insurance, and prepared shavings and kerosene and then went to Easton, Pennsylvania. The building was not fired and those who entered it saw evidences of incendiarism on every hand. The prosecution of Lang has been undertaken on the confession of his wife and stepson.
- The people against John A. Jenkins, of Long Island City. Mr. Jenkins is charged with stealing a lady's pocket book containing money and jewelry while he was employed on the Long Island Railroad as a brakeman. Having forfeited his bail, he is now in jail.
- The people against Joseph G. Farr, ex-Auditor of the Long Island Railroad Company. Mr. Farr is indicted for grand larceny in the second degree. He was recently released from the Kings County Penitentiary, and will now have to stand trial for the alleged offense of embezzling money from the ticket agents on the Long Island Railroad, whose accounts he was employed to audit, and therefore had access to their cash.
- A number of important cases will also be presented to the Grand Jury and not the least of these is the case of the Rev. Joseph Wilson, colored, of Quogue who is charged with assaulting on two separate occasions little Sarah Nelson, aged 9 years.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse