Historic Pelham

Presenting the rich history of Pelham, NY in Westchester County: current historical research, descriptions of how to research Pelham history online and genealogy discussions of Pelham families.

Friday, April 24, 2015

The North Pelham "Speakeasy Section" Created Quite a Stir During Prohibition


By 1929, an area in the Village of North Pelham had become notorious for both illicit gambling and unlawful speakeasies.  The area was known as the "Speakeasy Section."  It was located on Seventh Avenue between Sixth Street and Seventh Street.  (See map detail below.)



Map Showing Seventh Avenue
Between Sixth and Seventh Streets.

Among the speakeasies in that area was one operated by Charles Brockman at 574 Seventh Avenue.  It was named the "Shingle Inn" and was the unofficial headquarters of the notorious "North Pelham Checker Club" which was known to enjoy more than a game of checkers.  


On Tuesday, March 19, 1929, Federal Prohibition Officers, assisted by Village of North Pelham Police, burst into the Shingle Inn in a well-planned raid.  Police seized a rather amazing inventory of illicit liquor.  Law enforcement confiscated "900 bottles of home brew, five one-gallon jugs of home brew, one pint of alleged whiskey, one gallon of rhubarb wine, two quarts of red wine and two barrels of red wine."  According to The Pelham Sun, Brockman said that he had had enough and was finished with the speakeasy business.

Bluntly put, Prohibition was not popular in Pelham during the late 1920s.  According to one colorful account regarding the seizure of Brockman's hooch:  "When this liquor was unloaded from a truck in front of the Town Hall, a crowd quickly gathered and stood staring with longing eyes as case after case was unloaded." 

Neither the Feds nor North Pelham Police were finished.  Two truckloads of booze were hauled away from nearly simultaneous raids on three locations in the vicinity of the "Speakeasy Section."  

Among those arrested, Charles Brockman seems to have had at least one friend in a high place.  A portion of his bail was paid by his friend, James Reilly, Mayor of the Village of North Pelham.  Mayor Reilly was absolutely furious about the raid!  Furious!  

Mayor Reilly who, as Mayor, was head of the Village of North Pelham Police Department ,was never told the raid was about to happen.  The raid about which he was left in the dark ensnared his friend, whose bail he paid  in part.  Mayor Reilly, who was days from the end of his term, was humiliated.  Either it looked as though he had not been told of the raid out of fears that he might tip off his friend, or it looked as though his Police Chief did not respect the Mayor enough to keep him in the loop.  One way or the other, North Pelham Mayor Reilly was beside himself.  To make matters more interesting, Mayor Reilly and Police Chief Fitzpatrick already had been feuding over a variety of issues for two years!

Reilly's term as Mayor was set to expire only a week or so later.  That did not stop him, however, from attempting to bring the Police Chief to quick administrative trial on trumped up charges of disobedience.  Reilly discovered that his Police Chief was the brains behind the liquor raids in the Speakeasy Section.  He learned that the Chief had sent a patrolman to New York City to swear out federal warrants in support of the planned raid.  Reilly, a controlling and quick-tempered man, previously had told his Police Chief not to detail any police officer outside the boundaries of North Pelham without first obtaining the Mayor's authorization.

The Mayor ordered the suspension of the Police Chief effective immediately and ordered a police sergeant to sign a set of administrative charges against the Police Chief.  He also scheduled an administrative trial against the Chief.  The Chief was entitled to five days' notice of the trial, so the Mayor ordered notice of the charges to be served personally on the Chief.  At first, the Chief simply ignored his supposed suspension and reported for duty each day.  By the time notice of the trial and the charges were ready to be served on him, however, the Police Chief had obtained counsel and was nowhere to be found.  He could not be personally served.  Clearly the Police Chief was hoping for the expiration of the Mayor's term before a trial could be conducted when an admittedly more police-friendly administration was set to take office.  Reilly, however, would have none of it.  

On March 28, 1929, only three days before Mayor Reilly was scheduled to leave office, the North Pelham Village Board met to conduct an administrative hearing against Police Chief Fitzpatrick.  The place was packed with Town residents hoping to watch the drama.  At the appointed hour, neither the Chief nor his counsel appeared.  Reilly did not care.  Despite a statute that required service of such charges in person, by mail, or through newspaper publication, he deemed the act of leaving the papers at Fitzpatrick's house sufficient.  The Village Board tried Police Chief Fitzpatrick in absentia and found him guilty of all charges by a vote of 3-2.  To his own satisfaction, Mayor Reilly cast the deciding vote.  By the same vote, the Board dismissed the Police Chief from his position.


Only days later, with Reilly's retirement from the Mayoralty, one of the two trustees who voted against the charges and against the dismissal of the Police Chief, Edward Harder, became Mayor.  The new Town Board including the new Mayor had a slightly different makeup with three members who supported the Police Chief.  One of Mayor Harder's first actions as new Mayor was to grant a petition from the ousted Police Chief and his counsel for a rehearing of the charges and reconsideration of the dismissal.

On April 4, 1929, the new North Pelham Village Board conducted a rehearing of the charges.  Former Mayor Reilly was nowhere to be seen.  The courtroom was packed with Town residents, all of whom supported the ousted Police Chief.


According to an extensive account of the trial and trial testimony published the next day in The Pelham Sun (see below), after extensive testimony and argument, the trustees voted 3-1 (with one abstention) to reject all charges against the ousted Police Chief.  They concluded that service of the notice of earlier trial was deficient, that the orders issued by Mayor Reilly that the ousted Police Chief allegedly ignored were unlawfully issued, and that Mayor Reilly's participation in the hearing was inappropriate because he was actually the force behind bringing the charges -- not the police sergeant whom he ordered to sign the charges he had prepared.  Thus, the new Board reinstated Michael J. Fitzpatrick as the Village of North Pelham Police Chief.

The new Board was far less tolerant than former Mayor Reilly and his Board of the gambling and the serving of illegal liquor in the Speakeasy Section of North Pelham.  During the first three weeks of November, 1929, in an early example of so-called "broken windows" policing, the Board had the North Pelham Police Department cracked down on the Speakeasy Section of North Pelham.  For weeks the local court was filled with people who had been arrested or had received tickets in the Speakeasy Section for illegal parking, broken tail lights, parking too far from the curb, parking "without lights" and other such violations.

Broken windows policing, it seems, was not enough.  Only days later on Tuesday, November 19 and Wednesday, November 20, 1929, Federal agents swooped into the Speakeasy Section and the surrounding vicinity yet again and made several arrests at multiple locations.  On Tuesday, they raided the establishment of Charles Brockman at 574 Seventh Avenue again.  Despite Brockman's earlier attestation that he was finished with the speakeasy business, undercover Federal agents were served beer at his establishment.  They then served a warrant and seized the liquor and beer on the premises.  According to one account, the speakeasy had:

"two rooms of which were piled high with empty bottles of every description. A portable brewery had been installed in the kitchen and a fifty gallon barrel of beer mash stood beside the stove. The booze list of the federal agents was as follows: one 5 gallon jug of beer; 35 one gallon jugs of beer; 800 quart bottles of beer; 1,800 pint bottles of the same beverage; a quart of whiskey and a quart of gin."

Source:  Federal Agents Raid Speakeasies Seize Liquor; Three Arrests Made Capture Pelham Man In Mamaroneck, The Pelham Sun, Nov. 22, 1929, Vol. 20, No. 34, p. 1, cols. 6-7.  

Clearly, Prohibition was very unpopular in Pelham. . . . . 



Undated Image, Circa 1921, Depicting New York City
Deputy Police Commissioner John A. Leach, Far Right,
Watching Agents Pour Liquor Into Sewer Following
a Raid During the Height of Prohibition. Source: Photographic
Print from the New York World-Telegram and the Sun
Newspaper Photograph Collection Held in the Library of
Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, 
D.C. 20540 Reproduction No. LC-USZ62-123257 (b&w film copy neg.).


*          *          *          *          *


I have written a number of times about bootleggers, moonshiners, speakeasies, Prohibition, and earlier local prohibition movements in Pelham before national Prohibition.  For a few examples, see:

Tue., Nov. 18, 2014:  More Bootleggers and Speakeasies Raided in Pelham in 1929 During Prohibition.

Fri., May 23, 2014:  How Dry I Am -- Early Prohibition Efforts Succeed in Pelham in 1896.

Thu., Apr. 03, 2014:  The Prohibition Era in Pelham:  Another Speakeasy Raided.

Tue., Feb. 18, 2014:  Pelham Speakeasies and Moonshiners - Prohibition in Pelham: The Feds Raid the Moreau Pharmacy in Pelham Manor in 1922.

Thu., Feb. 07, 2008:  Village Elections in Pelham in 1900 - New York Athletic Club Members Campaign Against the Prohibition Ticket in Pelham Manor.

Thu., Jan. 12, 2006:  The Beer Battle of 1933.

Thu., Aug. 11, 2005:  How Dry I Am: Pelham Goes Dry in the 1890s and Travers Island Is At the Center of a Storm

Bell, Blake A., The Prohibition Era in Pelham, The Pelham Weekly, Vol. XIII, No. 25, June 18, 2004, p. 12, col. 2.

Below I have transcribed the text of numerous articles relating to today's posting.  Each is followed by a citation and link to its source.  

"Federal Prohibition Officers Stage Raid On North Pelham Speakeasies.  Three Proprietors Held In $300 Bail
-----
Brockman's Checker Club Scene of First Move -- Pellicci's and Cullen's Provide Contributions To Load Of Liquor Carted To Police Headquarters -- Part of Brockman's Bail Put Up By Mayor Reilly, Is Report
-----

Five Federal prohibition agents and a squad of local police headed by Police Chief Michael J. Fitzpatrick, staged a raid on North Pelham speakeasies on Tuesday afternoon.  As a result of their efforts, an assortment of forbidden beverages was hauled in two truckloads to police headquarters, and Charles Brockman, of No. 574 Seventh avenue; Tony Pellicci, of No. 109 Sixth avenue, and John Murphy, alias Christopher Cullen, of No. 331 Fifth avenue, were taken into custody on a charge of being in illegal possession of intoxicating liquor.

The raid was a total surprise.  Mayor Reilly knew nothing about it, although he is the nominal head of the police department.  David Lyon, town supervisor and recognized leader of things politic, also was in the dark; Edward Harder, candidate for the mayoralty, knew as much as Mayor Reilly.  On the shoulders of Village Trustee Shaw was the credit laid for the moral assistance given to Police Chief Fizpatrick, who laid the plans which were successfully carried out.  The village trustee has shown his ability to set according to his own ideas before this.  Elected by the Reilly Republicans two years ago, he has acted according to his own ideas on more than one occasion.  He deserted the Reilly organization on discovering things not to his liking.  Shaw has been in close association with the police department as instructor in marksmanship.

On February 27th complaint was registered as to the conduct of one 

(Continued on page 5)

[Page 5 Headline Cut Off in Image]

speakeasy.  It appeared on the police blotter.  Mayor Reilly was asked what he was doing.  He put it up to Chief Fitzpatrick.  'He has the power to act.  He knows what he can do,' said the Mayor.  'He's chief of police.'

The raid was planned for eleven o'clock Tuesday morning.  When the Federal men failed to appear at that time it was thought that the event was called off.  Later they appeared and developments began.

Evidence of sale of liquor had been previously obtained and Federal warrants secured.  The progress of Tuesday's raids was smooth.

Each raiding party struck at the same moment in order to prevent any tip-off of any place on the list to be raided.  Chief Fitzpatrick assigned local police officers to each party to make sure that the Federal agents did not miss the locations.

The largest haul of the day was taken from Brockman's place on Seventh avenue known as 'Shingle Inn,' the rallying ground of the 'North Pelham Checker Club,' an organization composed of some 34 local men who, in their weighty deliberations over the checker-board, needed more than mental or vocal stimulation.  Brockman admitted being president of the club and stated that admission was by membership card only, as previously one person had become drunk and wrecked his front door.

It was the Federal men's first move, at the Checker Club.  

The raiding party, composed of Agents John Murphy and F. J. Kelly, Chief Fitzpatrick, Sergeant James Whalen and Patrolman Hugh Shannon, confiscated some 900 bottles of home brew, five one-gallon jugs of home brew, one pint of alleged whiskey, one gallon of rhubarb wine, two quarts of red wine and two barrels of red wine.

When this liquor was unloaded from a truck in front of the Town Hall, a crowd quickly gathered and stood staring with longing eyes as case after case was unloaded.

Federal Agent Dominick Spinella and Patrolman Edward Morris entered the place at No. 331 Fifth avenue and, after they had convinced John Murphy, alias Chris. Cullen, that it was not a joke, confiscated six quarts of alleged gin, two half-barrels of alleged beer, three quarts of alleged Scotch whiskey, two bottles of port wine, one gallon of sherry, and one pint bottle half full of alleged rye whiskey.  Murphy told the police that he owned the [illegible] quarts of alleged whiskey to the raiding party, Agent Charles La Torrella and Patrolman Michael Lenshan.  Tony Pellicci told the police that the place was conducted by his father, Jack Pellicci.

The raiders entered the establishment of Jack Sims at Seventh street and Fifth avenue, but found no liquor.  Another place on the list was passed up when the warrant was found to bear the wrong address of the alleged speakeasy.

All three men were arraigned before Judge John E. Fetzer in North Pelham Police Court on Tuesday night and released under bail of $500.  Emilio Lembo of Fifth avenue furnished bail for Tony Pellicci; John Roggeveen did the same for Murphy, alias Cullen, while Irving J. Wallach put up $250 of the necessary $300 for Brockman's release.  Mayor James Reilly contributed $50 toward Brockman's bail.

The men were taken before United States Commissioner Cotter in the Federal Building in New York City on Wednesday and released under $500 bond each for appearance on Wednesday, April 3rd.

Trustee Albert E. Shaw arrived at the Town Hall a short time after the raids and congratulated chief Fitzpatrick upon his actions.  

When Mayor Reilly heard of the raid he called police headquarters, but found that Desk Lieutenant Dick was not aware of the plan for the swoop of the Federal men.  It is rumored that the Mayor has ordered Police Chief Fitzpatrick and Policeman Al Bernard, who secured the evidence, to appear at tonight's meeting of the village board to 'find out what's behind this raid.'  

Some of the places visited were reported to have reopened a few hours after the raid, but two of them are closed and the proprietors have stated they are out of the business for good.

'This is but a beginning,' said Trustee Shaw in speaking of the raid to a Sun reporter.  'We don't want places like that in our village.  Our police department is alright if it is not hampered in the execution of its duties.'

Proprietors of speakeasies and gambling places in North Pelham have been preparing for a change of scene for the last week or so, ever since the Republican primary made it probable that Edward Harder would be the next mayor of North Pelham.  They believed, however, that they would be given warning to 'get up and git' before being subjected to a raid such as that of Tuesday."

Source:  Federal Prohibition Officers Stage Raid On North Pelham Speakeasies.  Three Proprietors Held In $300 Bail, The Pelham Sun, March 15, 1929, p. 1, cols. 2-3 & p. 5, cols. 1-2.

"DRY AGENTS STAGE ANOTHER VISIT
-----

Federal Prohibition Agents, who raided five North Pelham speakeasies on March 12th, paid a return visit on Tuesday.  The establishment owned by Charles Brockman, of No. 574 Seventh avenue, was entiered.  No beverages werre found.

The restaurant owned by James De Feo at No. 214 Fifth avenue, was also raided but no liquor found."

Source:  DRY AGENTS STAGE ANOTHER VISIT, The Pelham Sun, Mar. 22, 1929, p. 1, col. 2.

"Mayor Reilly's Order Suspending Police Chief Fitzpatrick Ignored As Chief Continues Usual Duties
-----
Parting Shot Of Two Year Bitter Warfare Between Mayor and Police Chief May Be A Dud.  Expect That Trial Set For Monday Will Be Delayed Until After Retirement Of Mayor April 1st.  Sgt. Whalen Appointed Acting Head of Police Dept., But Fitzpatrick Still On Duty
------

With two heads to the police department North Pelham finds itself in much the same position that Pelham Manor was in last year when there were two chiefs of the fire department.  Acting on Mayor James Reilly's orders, Sgt. James Whalen is directing the activities of the police, although Chief of Police Michael Fitzpatrick has failed to recognize the suspension which was imposed upon him by Mayor Reilly last Friday night.  To date no contradictory orders have been issued by either Chief Fitzpatrick or Whalen.

Thus the police department farce which was started by Mayor Reilly two years ago when he first endeavored to remove Fitzpatrick has been brought to a laughable climax.

The Mayor predicts that Fitzpatrick will be tried Monday on charges of disobeying his orders.  Fitzpatrick claims that the threat of trial is as ineffective as he considers the suspension order.  The entire situation revolves around the Mayor's contention that his powers of supervision of police activities include the suspension and trial of an officer.  Trustee Albert E. Shaw, leader of the opposition to what the Mayor looks on as a coup d'etat, holds that the power of suspension and trial of an officer rests with the Board of Trustees.  Trustee Shaw is supported in this contention by citizens of the village, who are expected to make an expression when the Mayor opens his 'trial' on Monday.  Richard H. Lee of Pelham Manor is said to head the list of eminent counsel the Westchester County Police Protective Association and the New York State Chiefs of Police Association has retained in the case.

Fitzpatrick's suspension was Mayor Reilly's personal act.  It came at a meeting Friday night where the Mayor investigated the liquor raid.  He charged the chief with violating the orders in sending patrolman Albert Bernard to New York City to sign Federal warrants for the arrest of bootleggers here.  Fitzpatrick accepted the suspension order, and heard the Mayor appoint Whalen as acting head of the police department, but he has reported for duty every day since Sunday, and continued his duties as heretofore.  He acted on the advice of counsel.  Mayor Reilly knew nothing of the raid until Federal men had completed their task.

The Fitzpatrick case was made an issue by both the Democrats and the Republicans in the campaign which ended with the election of Edward B. Harder on Tuesday.  

Fitzpatrick was served with formal charges of disobedience of orders this week.  The charges were signed by Sgt. Whalen.  The 'trial' for Monday night is certain to attract a large gallery of spectators.

By a series of adjournments entangling a skein of technical red tape which will delay the matter until after the new board takes office April 1, it is believed Fitzpatrick's case will be held over until Mayor Reilly is out of office.

There are many who are prone to believe that the Mayor's interest in the prohibition raids was not chiefly aimed at Fitzpatrick.  He plainly showed that he fet slighted because he was not informed of the matter earlier.  Before a crowded boardroom, the overflow of which extended hafl way down the hallway at the Town Hall, on Friday night, Reilly endeavored to hold a thorough investigation of the prohibition raids which led to the discovery and confiscation of a large amount of illicit liquor in three local establishments.  The spectators included at least one of the men who were arrested in the raids.  An open recital of what was behind the raids would have made an interesting discussion and the Mayor seemed determined to make an open book of the entire matter.  Patrolman Albert Bernard and Chief Fitzpatrick had been summoned to explain their parts in the drama which had been enacted the Tuesday previous.  Trustee Edward B. Harder was first to oppose the Mayor's plan, and it was here that the first blockade in the meeting was reached.  Harder offered a motion that the matter be deferred to another night in view of the vast amount of important business to be completed that evening.  Trustee Albert E. Shaw seconded the motion.

Reluctantly the Mayor put the motion, and called for the affirmative vote.  Trustees Shaw and Harder voted 'Aye' and without asking for contrary expression, the Mayor announced 'The motion's lost' and he called Patrolman Albert Bernard to the room and showed him a chair near the board.

'Now Patrolman Bernard' -- he started, but he was cut short by Trustee Shaw.  

'That motion's carried.  This proceeding can't go on.'

'What do you mean carried?  You're out of order.  Two votes can't carry a motion here,' answered the Mayor.

'But there were no negative votes, Mr. Mayor,' blandly answered Trustee Shaw, and that precipitated another of the well-known Reilly tantrums.  It was some time before the Mayor could be persuaded to call for the contrary vote, but after Village Attorney George Lambert assured the Mayor that the motion would stand as carried if no contrary vote was registered, and Trustees Amato and Carey had indicated by their sentiment that they would vote against the measure, the Mayor conceded.  The vote stood two to two.

'Reilly votes 'no.'' adding his negative to that of Amato and Carey.

Then the inquisition began.  Bernard was recalled to the Mayor's witness stand, and Fitzpatrick assigned a chair nearby.

There followed a series of questions from the Mayor, in which it was seen that one of the Mayor's chief interests lay in getting information relative to the raid.  Patrolman Bernard who procured the evidence, asked to be excused from telling anything about how he had effected his coup, explaining that he had worked under orders from Chief Fitzpatrick.

Unable to gain any information relative to the securing of the eviddence turned to another vein of interrogation and to this Bernard told that he was detailed on the day preceding the raid to go to New York City to sign federal warrants after having procured the evidence.  The blotter showed Bernard reported as sick on that day.

This was meat for the Mayor, and 

(Continued on page 4)

 Reilly's Suspension Of Chief Is Ignored
(Continued from page 1)

he took great pains to get this point fixed in the minds of his audience.

Offered an opportunity to question the witness, Chief Fitzpatrick brought out the fact that Bernard's post had been covered by himself on that day when the patrolman was out of town.  Bernard confirmed this.  

It was with one point established that Reilly excused Bernard, and called Fitzpatrick to the fore.

In opening, the Mayor loudly assailed the chief for not informing him of the plan to raid the speakeasies.  Fitzpatrick stated that in view of the seriousness of the business he did not believe that it would be advisable to take anybody into his confidence.

This failed to please the Mayor but he held himself in check while he reopened his other vein of attack.  

'Do you know that I issued orders that no officer should be detailed out of the village without my approval?' he asked.

Fitzpatrick said that there might have been such an order, but in view of the circumstances he felt that he had acted rightly.

'Get the Book,' said the Mayor -- 'I'm going to show you that you acted against my orders.  You did it before and almost killed Jim Whalen.'  

Fitzpatrick endevored to state that it was an automobile that almost killed Whalen.  He referred to an accident last March in Mt. Vernon when Sergeant Whalen was injured.

'Never mind that.  Here, read this.'  It was the police blotter and the Mayor pointed to an order which he made in November, 1927, instructing the chief to first secure permission from the Mayor before detailing an officer out of town.

'Mr. Fitzpatrick, I am going to instruct the Village Attorney to prepare a paper suspending you on charges of disobedience of my orders,' dramatically said the Mayor.

Trustee Shaw was upon his feet.  'You can't do that -- the state law provides that a man can't be suspended until charges against him are heard by the Board of Trustees.'

'I'm doing this,' answered the Mayor.  

While the Village Attorney was preparing the suspension notice, Trustee Shaw sought the law books.  The notice completed, Reilly served it on Fitzpatrick, who thanked him.

Trustee Shaw registered his opposition to the mmove on the minutes of the meeting.

The Mayor stated to the press that the suspension of Fitzpatrick had nothing to do with the prohibition raids, but was purely on a charge of disobedience of orders.

The following petition has been circulated in North Pelham this week:

'We, the undersigned residents of the Village of North Pelham strongly oppose and unqualifiedly condemn the unnecessary suspension of Chief of Police Michael Fitzpatrick.  We believe that this suspension is without cause, and we refused to stand by in silence and see our courageous and competent official prevented from doing his duty.  

'We therefore respectfully request that the Mayor and Trustees of the Village of North Pelham reconsider this suspension and appoint a time and place for a public hearing wherein the residents of the village may be given an opportunity to appear and to present their opposition to the suspension of Chief Fitzpatrick."

Source:  Mayor Reilly's Order Suspending Police Chief Fitzpatrick Ignored As Chief Continues Usual Duties, The Pelham Sun, Mar. 22, 1929, p. 1, cols. 6-7 & p. 4, cols. 1-7.

"NORTH PELHAM CHIEF NOT TO FACE TRIAL THURSDAY
-----
PAPERS NOT AS YET SERVED
-----
Chief Fitzpatrick Must Be Served With Papers Before Tonight
-----
ACCORDING TO LAW
-----
Time Limit Expires at Midnight -- Chief Gone From the Village
-----

Charges of disobedience of Mayor James Reilly's orders, which were to have been served by Sergeant James Whalen on Chief Michael J. Fitzpatrick, of the police department, last Saturday have not been served yet, because of inability to get in touch with the chief, according to Sergeant Whalen.

The charges were drawn up by Judge George Lambert, village attorney, and are to be preferred by Sergeant Whalen, according to a resolution made by Trustee Michael Carey, and passed by the board last Friday night.

Attempts to reach Chief Fitzpatrick for the last few days have been unsuccessful and at his home yesterday it was said that he wasn't in.

According to law, the charges must be served five days before the trial.  If the charges are not served until tomorrow they cannot be heard in open trial before April 1, when Mayor Reilly will be out of office.

Chief Fitzpatrick was suspended by Mayor Reilly on March 15, in the midst of a village board meeting, after Motorcycle Officer Bernard testified that he had been sent to New York by the chief to swear out warrants agaisnt several alleged 'speakeasies.'  Chief Fitzpatrick admitted he had sent Bernard to New York.

The suspension was made on the grounds of disobedience of orders issued by the mayor on November, 1927, that no policemen were to be sent out of the village.

Chief Fitzpatrick reported for duty every day for five days after his suspension and then appeared in uniform and took command of the department.  Last Friday night the village board passed a resolution to hold a trial, after Trustee A. E. Shaw and E. B. Harder protested the illegality of the mayor's suspension.

The protest was based on the rules made by the board of trustees on September 20, 1927 which specified in one place that 'the charges will be made and prepared by the village counsel as the board of trustees may direct.'

By a vote of three to two, with Mayor Reilly, Trustee Carey and Trustee Dominick Amato voting in favor, and Trustees Harder and Shaw opposed, the resolution was passed to try Chief Fitzpatrick on Thursday.  The expectation was that the charges would be served the following day.

Richard H. Lee, of the Boston Post road, who has been retained by Chief Fitzpatrick to defend him, said yesterday that he was not aware of the whereabouts of his client and that he did not know that the trial had been postponed from last night to Thursday night."  

Source:  NORTH PELHAM CHIEF NOT TO FACE TRIAL THURSDAYThe Daily Argus [Mount Vernon, NY], Mar. 26, 1929, p. 14, col. 1.  

"POLICE CHIEF FITZPATRICK OUSTED; REILLY'S VOTE BREAKS TIE IN BOARD
-----
Without Vote On Question Of Guilt North Pelham Chief Is Thrown Out Of Office -- Will Appeal To Courts
-----
Crowded Courtroom Hears Mayor Reilly Characterize Chief Who He Has Served For Seventeen Years As Having As Rotten A Record As Any Policeman In the County
-----

Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Chief of police of North Pelham and a member of the department for seventeen years is out!

He was dismissed from the police department last night, when the Board of Trustees stood two for and two against it and Mayor Reilly who filed the original charge cast the deciding vote that put Fitzpatrick figuratively out on the street.  On the advice of his counsel, Richard H. Lee, Fitzpatrick was not present.  

Mayor Reilly did not even ask the Board to vote on the question of guilty or not guilty.  When the charges were read by Clerk O'Sullivan, Mayor Reilly asked for action from the Board and had to be reminded by Village Attorney Lambert that the charges must be proven first.

Evidence was taken.  Sergt. Whalen testified that he had been sent to Mount Verrnon -- but it was in the line of duty.  Policeman Bernard testified that he had been sent to New York -- that also was in the lline of duty.  The evidence closed after it was proved that Fitzpatrick issued orders as chief of police after he had been suspended by Mayor Reilly.  The original charges made by Mayor Reilly were withdrawn.  The charges heard last night were made by Sergt. Whalen.  Had they been made by the Mayor he would not have sat on the Board to try the case.  

Before Trustee Amato made the motion that Fitzpatrick be dismissed, Mayor Reilly vented his personal abuse upon the absent police chief, winding up by saying that Police Chief Fitzpatrick's rotten record is equalled by no other policeman in the county.  Amato's action brought dismissal.  

The whole case was based on mere technicalities.  Mayor Reilly had a right to expect his orders to be obeyed.  They were disregarded in the interest of police duty and for the effectiveness of the police force.  A verdict of guilty on the charges of disobedience could have been rendered correctly.  The punishment of dismissal after seventeen years of service is too drastic.

Apart from this is the question of whether a legal notice of the trial was served upon Fitzpatrick.  

As a result of last night's proceedings Richard H. Lee, attorney for Fitzpatrick, will start legal proceedings to obtain justice for Fitzpatrick.  During the recent election campaign, both parties made an issue of 'Justice for Fitzpatrick.'

Mayor Reilly has expressed an opinion that the dismissal of Fitzpatrick will make it necessary for him to remain off duty a year before he can take an examination for police chief under civil service rules.  Many see in Reilly's action a grand stand play in the closing hours of his administration, which ends on Sunday.

Indignation at the action of the Board is running high in the village.  Financial assistance has been offered to Fitzpatrick to fight the case in the courts.  Petitions have been started seeking his reinstatement.

The joker is that if Fitzpatrick begins action against the village it will be defended by a new village attorney, Walter Kennedy, who is entirely in sympathy with him and the new Board also will be a majority in favor of the police chief.

Fitzpatrick was appointed chief eight years ago by Reilly, after Reilly had quarreled with Police Chief Marvel.  

The boardroom filled to overflowing before the members of the Board of Trustees made their appearance.  Spectators arrayed themselves on window sills and into an improvised balcony made of election machine cases in the rear of the room.  For some distance down the hall leading to the room, the curious, inspired by the publicity given the case in the last two years, packed themselves into a solid mass, all endeavoring to catch a few words of the argument which was anticipated.  Strangely enough, there was none of this forthcoming.  Village Attorney George Lambert and Mayor James Reilly conducted the trial, at which Chief Fitzpatrick did not appear.  His attorney, Richard H. Lee, also was absent.  When it was found Chief Fitzpatrick was not present, Village Clerk George O'Sullivan rose from his seat to go to see if the chief was in the building.  He was reproved by the Mayor.

'Stay where you are,' ordered Reilly.  'You needn't go looking around for him.'  O'Sullivan sank back in his chair.

Village Attorney Lambert asked if counsel for Fitzpatrick was present.  There was no answer.

Trustee Shaw asked if Fitzpatrick had been notified of the trial.  Sergt. Whalen was summoned and explained that he had been unable to make personal service as the chief was not at home when he called.  He stated that he had left the papers with Chief Fitzpatrick's daughter at the chief's home on Saturday.

Trustee Shaw asked if personal service was not necessary.  He appealed to the Village Attorney Lambert for a decision.  Lambert admitted that, although the law did not definitely state that personal service was necessary, there might be a technical point raised inasmuch as the only alternative mentioned in the law governing the serving of notices allowed service by mail.  It did not take into consideration the leaving of the papers at a defendant's residence during his absence.

He stated, however, that he thought that the action of Sergt. Whalen was more certain than mailing the papers.

The Mayor demanded to know if Trustee Shaw was acting as Fitzpatrick's counsel.  He was not enlightened.

The village attorney stated that he had expected that the question of service would be brought.

'Mr. Fitzpatrick, however, had been served with papers to answer to charges on Monday, March 25, and he did not appear to answer them, therefore it might be assumed that Fitzpatrick had knowledge of the change in date of trial because he was on duty until the day the revised papers were to be served.' said Lambert, 'Who gave him permission to absent himself from duty after March 22, when he had been on duty 

(Continued on page 4)

Chief Fitzpatrick Is Ousted By Reilly
-----
(Continued from page one)

every day before that?  I believe that Fitzpatrick was fully aware of the proceedings and therefore he can be tried.'

Trustee Shaw said that the Board might be making an unlawful move.  For this the Mayor accused Shaw of entering into the trial prejudiced in favor of Fitzpatrick.  Again there was no answer.  The Mayor ordered Village Clerk George O'Sullivan to read the charges.

They included four counts of disobedience of orders as follows:  March 5, 1928, sending Sergt. Whalen to Mt. Vernon to find an automobile which did damage in North Pelham; March 9, 1929, sending Patrolman Albert Bernard to New York City to sign Federal warrants in the booze raid cases; March 11, 1929, sending Bernard on a similar mission; March 15, ignoring Mayor Reilly's order of suspension.

'That's all, gentlemen,' said the Mayor.  'You heard the charges, and heard the evidence.  What is your pleasure?'

'Wait a minute,' said the village attorney.  'You must prove the charges.'

The Mayor was somewhat taken aback, but he started the proceeding, summoning Lieut. Bruce Dick to the stand to explain the order made by the Mayor on Nov. 20, 1927, instructing the chief not to detail any officers out of the village without notifying him.  

Sergt. Whalen told of being detailed to Mt. Vernon on March 5 last year.  Patrolman Bernard, the next witness, told of being detailed to New York City to sign the warrants.

Trustee Shaw voiced the only opposing sentiment.  'Don't you think it will be well to have the reason for Bernard's detail placed on the record?' he asked.

That was the signal for the Mayor:  'Just open that door on that subject and we'll go right into it,' he shouted.  'There's a lot of other things that we'll tell about if you do.  I am going to ask Bernard some fine questions if you do.  Do you want to do it?'

He waited for the usual rebuff from Shaw but none was forthcoming.

Then the Mayor and village attorney questioned Bernard whether or not Fitzpatrick had continued his duties after he was suspended by Reilly.  The answers showed that Fitzpatrick had issued orders.  None of them were of any importance, although the Maor offered to have Patrolman John Lomax summoned in from post to testify that the Chief had issued orders to him.  It was not deemed necessary.

'There's the evidence,' said the village attorney.  'It's up to you gentlemen, if you think the charges are proven, you are to do as you see fit.' 

'There's no doubt that they are proven,' said Reilly.

Trustee Amato askked if there was any answer to the charges.  The Mayor stated that there was none, but that that was not the fault of the Board of Trustees.

'Fitzpatrick knew all about the charges,' said Reilly.  'He thinks he's the whole thing around here.'

It was here that Trustee Amato indicated that he was in favor of punishment for the chief.

'From the evidence his guilt is proven.  In addition to that, I believe that his direct abandonment of the police department when he learned that he was to be tried, if his suspension was illegal, was poor police duty,' he said.

'The charges never were illegal,' interrupted the Mayor.

'In my opinion it was lowering the morale of the police department,' continued Amato.

The Mayor asked opinions from the rest of the Board.  Trustee Harder continued his silence.

Trustee Carey sided with the Mayor.  'It appears to me that Fitzpatrick's absence is an admission of guilt,' he said.  'If he's not man enough to face the charges, he is not fit to be in the police department.'

Trustee Shaw had nothing to say, and then Mayor Reilly delivered his valedictory, which was nothing more than a repetition of his previous remarks.  

'The only thing I can say,' stated the Mayor, 'is that as far as Fitzpatrick is concerned during the two years that I have been Mayor, he did everything that he personally could to humiliate me.  When I put an order on the police blotter that he should not detail officers out of town, it was only three months later that he ignored it altogether.  It was done at a time when he knew that he had the majority of the Board on his side.  I brought it before the Board of Trustees and they paid no attention to it.

'I don't want to bring politics into this trial but this spring when he knew that Harder was running for Mayor on the Republican ticket and Larkin was running for Mayor on the Democratic ticket, and I was not running, he figured that he could do as he pleased.  He sent Bernard down town twice, when all that he would have had to do was to notify me and I would have given him permission.  He could have shown a little courtesdy, but he didn't.

'He humiliated me and I just wanted to show him that he could not have things his own way.  Here before this board he admitted knowing that I had given orders against sending men out of town.

'I think it is the best thing for this police department that he be dismissed.  As long as Fitzpatrick is head of the police department you will have no police department.  As a policeman and chief I think there is not another policeman in Westchester county that has as rotten a record as Fitzpatrick has in the police department.

Trustee Amato immediately moved that Fitzpatrick be dismissed.  'In fairness to the taxpayers of this billage I believe that this should be done,' he saaid.

Trustee Michael Carey seconded the motion.  The Mayor put the question and polled the board.  Trustees Amato and Carey voted 'aye' and Trustees Harder and Shaw, 'no.'  The tie vote put the decision up to Reilly.

'I vote 'aye',' said the Mayor.

Similar vote was registered for the motions to notify Chief Fitzpatrick of his suspension and also to notify the civil service commission of the dismissal of the chief.

Interviewed by The Pelham Sun, Trustee Edward B. Harder, who will assume the office of Mayor next week said, 'I expected this, I have nothing to say at this time.'

Trustee Albert E. Shaw was more explicit.  'I believe that this is the most ridiculous thing that has ever happened in the history of this village.'

-----

The date of the hearing was changed and the Mayor's stand strengthened somewhat, Friday night when Trustee Albert E. Shaw reopened the discussion of the case although adjournment was expected after the tentative budget was fixed.  Trustee Shaw questioned the Mayor's right to assume that he could suspend Fitzpatrick and bring him to trial without a vote of the trustees.  Reairing of the entire matter resulted in Trustee Michael Carey offering a motion that the Board direct additional charges be drawn against the chief, and that the hearing be held on the 28th.  Trustee Dominic Amato seconded this motion and Mayor Reilly added his vote, overcoming the opposition of Trustees Shaw and Harder.  Thus Shaw gained his point by having the Board take action but the new charges were more substantial than the original.

Trustee Shaw's doubt that the Mayor had full authority to suspend and order Fitzpatrick's trial was dittoed by Trustee Harder.

Trustee Amato asked if new charges were made could they be heard on the night appointed.

'The officer must have give days notice of the trial,' said Lambert, explaining that the hearing set for Monday night mjust be postponed.

'Better watch out for Fitzpatrick.  If he hears that there are to be more charges you won't be able to find him,' laughed the Mayor.  'He'll fly the coop.'

The Mayor may consider that his remarks was borne out by Fitzpatrick's sudden absence on Saturday.  Fitzpatrick reported for duty, yesterday morning, and covered his post until 5 o'clock.  Sinct that time he has not been seen around the village.

The Pelham Sun endeavored to get into communication with the chief this morning, but was informed by Mrs. Fitzpatrick that he was not at home."

Source:  POLICE CHIEF FITZPATRICK OUSTED; REILLY'S VOTE BREAKS TIE IN BOARD, The Pelham Sun, Mar. 29, 1929, Vol. 19, No. 57, p. 1, cols. 1-7p. 4, cols. 1-3.

"POLICE CHIEF FITZPATRICK REINSTATED; CHARGES DISMISSED AFTER REHEARING
-----
Crowded Courtroom Cheers Decision of Board Last Night -- Trustees Vote Three and One On All Four Charges, Carey Opposing, Amato Not Voting -- Defense Claimed Dismissal of Chief Effected Without Proper Service Of Notice To Appear At Trial; Orders Disobeyed Were Illegally Issued, and Mayor Reilly's Seat On Trial Case Improper As He Ordered Sergeant Whalen To Prefer Charges Instigated By Himself
-----

Michael J. Fitzpatrick dismissed as chief of police of North Pelham last week by the old board of trustees headed by Mayor Reilly, was last night reinstated by the new board headed by Mayor Harder which took office this week.

The reinstatement carries with it full pay from March 15th, the time the order of suspension was issued by Mayor Reilly.  After a rehearing on the charges, chief Fitzpatrick was found not guilty on all four counts.

The decision was greeted with applause from the crowded courtroom.  Fitzpatrick resumed his duties immediately after the hearing.

The rehearing took on the aspects of a big legal trial.  The Board deserted its usual seats on the floor level to occupy seats on the platform.  Attorneys, stenographers and newspapermen were on the lower level of the floor.

Chief Fitzpatrick was represented by Richard H. Lee and Joseph F. Curren of Lee, Donnelly & Curren, New York law firm.  Walter E. Kennedy newly appointed village attorney, appeared for the trustees.  Ex-Mayor Reilly was not present.

After Mayor Harder opened the hearing with the full membership of the Board present and explained the purpose of the meeting, Village Clerk Hurtig read the petition presented to the Board by Chief Fitzpatrick, asking for a rehearing of his case.  The petition claimed that order of dismissal was void by reason of lack of proper notice of hearing of charges, and for irregularities in the proceedings.  That orders of Mayor Reilly which it is claimed were disobeyed were unreasonable and issued by Mayor Reilly without approval of the Board, required to make them legal; that such alleged violations in one instance resulted in arrests of persons charged with violating liquor laws; that all were in furtherance of police duty; that the preferring of charges by Sergt. Whalen was a subterfuge employed by Mayor Reilly, who instigated the charges, so that he could sit at the trial and act as judge when such would have been denied him if he had himself preferred the charges; that the alleged violation of suspension order was of no effect as the order issued by Mayor Reilly was without the required legal sanction of the Board of Trustees; that Sergt. Whalen is a junior police officer and, according to village law, cannot prefer charges against a senior officer; that charges are too trivial to warrant order of dismissal and that matters not considered in the charges were introduced and affected the judgment of those who voted to dismiss Fitzpatrick.

Reinstatement Sought

The petition sought a dismissal of the charges, the reinstatement of Fitzpatrick with full pay for time of suspension and that the notice of the chief's dismissal sent to the Civil Service Commission be revoked.

Clerk Hurttig also read a petition signed by 174 names, which sought the reinstatement of the police chief.

The four charges of disobedience by Chief Fitzpatrick of orders issued by Mayor Reilly were read.  Three concerned sending policemen ouf of the village without Mayor Reilly's order and one of refusing to obey Mayor Reilly's order of suspension by continuing his police duties.  They were made by Sergt. Whalen.

Sergt. Whalen First Witness

On the stand, Sergt. Whalen admitted making the charges and serving them by leaving them at Chief Fitzpatrick's home.

Sergt. Whalen [said] 'he (Reilly) gave them to me to sign.  I had not seen or heard of the charges before.

Sergt. Whalen further testified that he had been sent by Chief Fitzpatrick to Mount Vernon on police duty.  He had not been asked previously to sign documents relating to the chief of police.  Both sets of charges were given to him by Village Attorney Lambert when Mayor Reilly told him to be the complainant in the case.  He had never heard of Mayor Reilly's order forbidding police officers going outside the village without the mayor's approval.

Patrolman Bernard testified that he had been sent to New York on two occasions to obtain Federal warrants.  That as a result arrests were made and cases pending.  He knew of Mayor Reilly's order only by hearsay.

Trustee Carey -- When you swore out the warrants, how did you come to make a mistake in the addresses?

The question was ruled irrelevant.  There was no answer.

Chief Fitzpatrick Testifies

Chief Fitzpatrick testified that he had been chief for three years, had 17 years service on the force and that charges, subsequently withdrawn, were preferred against him while he was captain.  He affirmed the testimony of Whalen and Bernard that they were ordered by him out of the village on duty.  His return to duty after Mayor Reilly's suspension order was on advice of his counsel that the order was issued without proper authority.  He admitted knowledge of Mayor Reilly's order forbidding men to be sent out of town without the Mayor's order, but did not think it applied to a case where there were complaints of liquor selling and gambling and it was necessary to get Federal warrants from New York.  'Mr. Reilly said it was up to me to get the evidence, that I had the power,' said Chief Fitzpatrick.

He further testified that Mayor Reilly's orders usually came through Desk Lieutenant Dick, who put them on the blotter.  

Trustee Carey -- Did you stay away from the trial on advice of counsel?

Attorney Lee -- I object.  The charge is one of coming back to duty, not staying away.

Trustee Amato asked if Fitzpatrick had received the original charges which which called for a trial on March 25th, and if he would have appeared.

Chief Fitzpatrick said that he had been advised by counsel that Village Attorney Lambert had notified his counsel that the charges were withdrawn.

Trustee Carey -- Were you notified of the new charges?

Fitzpatrick -- Yes, on the day they were to be tried.

Attorney Curren moved for a verdict of not guilty on the four charges.

'The charge of insubordination, that he continued his duties after the suspension was issued, must fall,' said Curren.  He cited Section 188-F of the village law which empowers the Board of Trustees to suspend an officer without pay pending trial of charges.  'The Mayor was entirely without authority in issuing an order of suspension without a majority order of the Board,' said Curren.

Village Attorney Kennedy -- Was there a suspension order before the Board?  Perhaps you can tell us, Mr. Amato?

Trustee Amato -- Absolutely no.

Attorney Curren -- Then there was no suspension pending trial on charges,

Mr. Curren then attacked the legality of Mayor Reilly's order of Nov. 20, 1927, forbidding officers to be sent out of the village without his order as an illegal, unreasonable restraint upon the exercise of police duties, citing the law to show that the issuance of such order must be made by a majority vote of the Board.

'If this officer is pursuing a thief and comes to the border of the village, would he have to go to White Plains, hunt up Mayor Reilly and get an order permitting him to go outside the village?  What a ridiculous situation' said Curren.  'Chief Fitzpatrick was acting according to his duty.  Warrants were obtained and arrests made.  This order never had the authority of the Board.'

Whalen's Charges Were Reilly's

Attorney Curren then asserted that as a matter of fact the charges preferred by Sergt. Whalen were in reality Mayor Reilly's charges, that Sergt. Whalen had testified that he had no knowledge of the charges until Mayor Reilly said 'You must be the complainant.  Sign the charges.'  He supported his statement by calling attention to an error in the original charges made by Mayor Reilly which was re-

(Continued on page 5)

Chief Fitzpatrick Returns To Duty
-----
(Continued from page one)

peated in the charges made by Sergt. Whalen.  

'I say that because of this, Mayor Reilly should not have sat on the Boar when it heard the charges,' said Curren.  He quoted Section 188-F of village law which provides that any person preferring charges shall not sit on trial of same.  To prove a charge that Mayor Reily was biased he quoted from the report of the dismissal hearing, when, before a vote was taken, Mayor Reilly said in part:  'In so far as Fitzpatrick's record is concerned as a policeman . . . there is not another policeman in the Town [sic] of Westchester that has got the rotten record that Fitzpatrick has got in so far as police duties is concerned.'  The vote was two to two, and Mayor Reilly's vote was improperly recorded.  In justice to the petitioner he should not have sat on the trial March 18th.,' said Curren.

To prove failure of proper service upon Fitzpatrick of notice of trial, Attorney Curren again quoted village law, which sets forth that notice can be served personally, by mail or by newspaper publication.  No other course than leaving the notice at Fitzpatrick's home was attempted.

Citing the failure to establish guilt as a further reason for dismissing charges, Attorney Curren quoted the records showing that the failure of Fitzpatrick to appear at the hearing affected the decision of Trustees Carey and Amato, who expressed their disapproval of the chief's absence and let it influence their decision to dismiss him.  

He pleaded for reinstatement, compensation and withdrawal of Civil Service notice of dismissal of Chief Fitzpatrick.

Village Attorney Kennedy asked whether proceedings were not taking on the aspects of a trial of Mayor Reilly, instead of Fitzpatrick.  He believed that the issuance of Mayor Reilly's order was in good faith, to save officers being detailed to town work at village expense, as he believed they had been in one instance.

He recommended that the charge of continuing duties after suspension be withdrawn as there was no evidence that the Board of Trustees had ever issued an order of suspension against Chief Fitzpatrick.  On the question of proper notice of the trial he cited Attorney Lambert's opinion that service of papers at home was just as efficient as service personally by publication or by mail.  He advised the Board to poll the vote separately on the four charges.

Attorney Lee -- The whole case hinges on the right of Mayor Reilly to issue orders.  The law shows that right belongs to the Board of Trustees.  The original order was illegal and invalid.  The whole case should be thrown out.  

Trustee Amato asked if the Mayor or Board has supervision of the police department. 

Village Attorney Kennedy read several sections of village law showing the Mayor's duties are supervisory and that all orders, rules and regulations must be issued and approved by the Board of Trustees.

Trustee Amato then asked if when the Board of Trustees issued the order for the trial and Fitzpatrick disappeared from the village it was not disobeying orders.

Attorney Lee -- We first thought that the order was invalid and so we sent him back to duty.  Then Village Attorney Lambert made a complaint that it was a terrible thing for the suspended police chief to be parading around the village in uniform and so we took him out of the village.  We tried to guess right twice but we failed.  (Laughter).

A separate vote was then taken on all four counts.  Trustee Amato, who initiated the motion for Fitzpatrick's dismissal refused to vote saying that he hadn't heard enough law to enable him to form an intelligent judgment.  Trustee Hadley voted not guilty.  Trustee Carey voted guilty.  Trustee Shaw, not guilty.  The vote was two to one, but Mayor Harder apparently wishing to declare himself voted not guilty making the poll three to one in favor of Fitzpatrick.  The vote was repeated on all four counts.

Trustee Shaw then moved the resolution which reinstated Fitzpatrick with pay for time of suspension, revoking notice of dismissal to Civil Service commission.  It was carried amid applause, Amato again voting no.

At Monday night's organization meeting of the village board, Chief Fitzpatrick through his counsel, Richard H. Lee, made application for a rehearing of the charges which were filed against him and resulted in his dismissal last week by the Board over which Mayor Reilly presided.  

The new mayor put the application for a rehearing before the Board.  After Village Attorney Kennedy had advised the Board that the chief was legally entitled to a rehearing.

Trustee Carey objected to reopening the case.  Trustee Amato said he didn't think it was necessary.

Trustee Shaw moved that the application be granted.  'The sooner we hear it, the better.  I suggest that a hearing be set for next Thursday night.'

The vote again stood two and two.  Mayor Harder decided in favor of a rehearing for the Fitzpatrick case."

Source:  POLICE CHIEF FITZPATRICK REINSTATED; CHARGES DISMISSED AFTER REHEARING, The Pelham Sun, Apr. 5, 1929, Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 1, cols. 1-7 & p. 5, col. 1.

START HERE:  http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2018/Pelham%20NY%20Sun/Pelham%20NY%20Sun%201929/Pelham%20NY%20Sun%201929%20-%200188.pdf 

"TRAFFIC DRIVE IS CONTINUED
-----
Seventh Avenue Violators Fined In Local Court
-----

North Pelham, November 1. -- The North Pelham police are pushing strongly their drive to clean up conditions on Seventh avenue in that village between Sixth and Seventh streets.  That section of Seventh avenue is described as the 'speakeasy' section by North Pelhamites.  Officers are constantly on the watch there to nab violators of traffic ordinances.  Last night, of the nine cases heard in North Pelham court by Justice of the Peace Alfred P. Walker, jr., six cases involved the violation of a village traffic ordinances in that block.

A total of $34 was collected in fines from the six offenders.  The violations included parking on the left side of the curb, parking without lights, parking more than six inches from the curb, parking without lights, parking more than six inches from the curb and obstructing a driveway.

Every week for the past few months the court has handed out fines varying from $3 to $10 for violations of village traffic ordinances in that section.  Last night's court also fined three other drivers a total of $13 for improper parking, parking in front of a fire house and driving a truck on a restricted street."

Source:  TRAFFIC DRIVE IS CONTINUED -- Seventh Avenue Violators Fined In Local Court, The Daily Argus [Mount Vernon], Nov. 1, 1929, p. 19, col. 2.  

"NORTH PELHAM
-----
NINE CASES HEARD BY JUSTICE PRICE
-----
Fine Six Traffic Violators in North Pelham Courts
-----

Justice of the Peace Floyd Price heard nine cases in North Pelham court last night.  All cases involved the violation of village traffic ordinances.  The amount collected in fines totalled $46.  Three violators were given suspended sentences and six paid fines.  The offenses included improper parking, driving without lights and reckless driving.  

Two of the arrests made by the North Pelham police which resulted in the violators appearing in court last night were made on Seventh avenue, in a section known as the speakeasy section and which the North Pelham police are cleaning up."

Source:  NORTH PELHAM -- NINE CASES HEARD BY JUSTICE PRICE -- Fine Six Traffic Violators in North Pelham Courts, The Daily Argus [Mount Vernon, NY], Nov. 8, 1929, p. 24, col. 2.    

"NORTH PELHAM
-----
FOUR FINED BY JUDGE WALKER
-----
Traffic Violators Arraigned In North Pelham Court
-----

Fines totalling $25 were collected from four traffic ordinance violators in North Pelham court last night.  Justice of the Peace Alfred P. Walker, Jr. presided.  The campaign to clean up the so-called speakeasy section on Seventh avenue continued with the fining of two drivers on that street.

Isaac Tidell of 205 South Fourth avenue, Mount Vernon, was fined $5 for parking in that section without a rear light on his car.  Joseph Spane, of 321 South Tenth avenue, Mount Vernon, was fined $5, for illegal parking.  

Hugo Boerner of 401 East 156th street, New York city paid a $5 fine for speeding along Fifth avenue, North Pelham.  Frank Turco of 4 Cedar street, Larchmont, paid a $10 fine for speeding on Fifth avenue.  The case of Mrs. Marjorie Murray of Pelham up on a charge of petit larceny involving the alleged theft of a bottle of cream, was adjourned."

Source:  NORTH PELHAM -- FOUR FINED BY JUDGE WALKER -- Traffic Violators Arraigned In North Pelham Court, The Daily Argus [Mount Vernon, NY], Nov. 15, 1929, p. 3, col. 1.  


Labels: , , , , , , , , ,