|
Maryland State Archives Baltimore City Police Enlarge and print image (886K)      |
![]() |
||||
|
Maryland State Archives Baltimore City Police Enlarge and print image (886K)      |
| in the case of State vs. Guy that two witnesses for the State, viz, the said V/ein and the said Sperzel, were unworthy of belief, while in truth and in fact said witnesses were worthy of belief and said Pumphrey and Hammersla had made no investigation into their character and reputation, and had no knowledge thereof which would justify the testimony so given. VII, That said Pumphrey in order to discredit the said Sperzel and to impeach his testimony as a state's witness in the Guy case in Bel Air, did testify under oath in said case that he knew that said Sperzel at one time lived in the same house with certain Chinamen who were conducting a place in said house for the smoking of opium, and that said Chinamen had been arrested for this criminal offense; the said Pumphrey thereby seeking to convey the impression that the said Sperzel was an associate of the said Chinamen and a party to the criminal offence hereinbefore mentioned;that thereafter under cross examination in the said case the said Pumphrey after his attention had been called to the fact that it was his duty as a state's officer to have caused the arrest of the said Sperzel for the said offense, was compelled to admit that he did not know that the said Sperzel was living in the said house at the time the said opium joint was conducted therein, and that he did not know whether the said Sperzel had removed from said house one year or ten years before the arrest of the Chinamen above mentioned. VIII. That said Pumphrey did willingly furnish to the defense in the Fisher case and again in the Guy case at Bel Air two letters alleged to have been received from the said Captain Titus in regard to the said V/ein, so that they might be offered in evidence in open Court to discredit the said V.'ein, but that when this informant desired access to these letters on the 27th of October, 1902, said Pumphrey did state to this Board that this informant should not have access to said letters because they were in the nature of a confidential communication from a fellow detective in New York. |