Maryland State Archives

Baltimore City Police
msa_s1894_02-0214

   Enlarge and print image (894K)     

 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 

Maryland State Archives

Baltimore City Police
msa_s1894_02-0214

   Enlarge and print image (894K)     

 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
mersla was a witness for the defense therein as to the reputation of said Wein, and freely gave his assistance to said Fisher and aided hin in the presentation of his case, with the result that said Fisher was acquitted of the charge against him. V. That said Hamnersla testified under oath at Bel Air in the case of State vs. Fisher and again in the case of State vs. Guy, that a witness for the State, viz, the said Wein, was unworthy of belief, while in truth and in fact said witness was worthy of belief and Hamnersla had made no investigation into his character and reputation, and had no knowledge thereof which would justify the testimony so given. VI. That said Hammersia testified under oath in the Fisher case and again in the Guy case, and a third tine in the case of the State of Maryland vs. Cleary, who was one of the parties indicted in Baltimore for violation of the liquor law upon the testimony of the said Wein and the said Metcalf, and who was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore October 1902, that sometime in the summer of 1902 the said Wein had offered to leave town so that it would not be possible to convict the parties so indicted, as aforesaid, upon the testimony of the said Wein, provided the said Hammersla would secure from each of said parties so indicted the sum of Twenty-five Dollars or Fifty dollars to be paid to the said Wein; and said Hammersla did further testify that he did not cause the arrest of the said Wein for soliciting a bribe, as aforesaid, but relieved himself of responsibility in the matterby reporting the sane to his superior officer, Captain Henry; that as a matter of fact the said Hammersla did not have the said conversation with the said -Vein, but on the contrary the said Hammersla in the month of June, 1902, did endeavor to persuade the said Wein to leave town and not to prosecute the case against the said Cleary for the reason that the said Cleary was a friend of the said Hammersla. Your informant further states that it made an investigation into the character and reputation of its said agent, the said Wein, before his employment by it, and