The Georgetown news., 1856-01-31
For the Georgetown News.
GEORGETOWN, Jan. q

GEORGETOWN, Jan. 30, 1856.
MEssRs. EDITORS: Permit me through the col
umns of the Ne,cs to correct an errorthat seems
to be prevalent in the minds of some of the citi
zens of Georgetown in relation to the duties Of
Justices of the Peace and peace officers, concern
ing public offences. 1t is believed and contend
ed by some that it is made the duties of magis
trates and peace officers, by the Statutes of Cal
ifornia, to interfere and suppress on their OWL
account all public offences that may be commit
ted, or attempted to be committed within theil
jurisdiction, that may come to their knowledge
whether complaint has been first made or uot
as is required by law. In order that your read
ers may more fully understand what am aiming
at, will here state that on Sunday last l was
| frequently asked by citizens of Georgetown
whether Twas going to prevent the Potter troupe
from performing that night. My reply to all
such inquiries was: You have law forbiddng
1t; let some citizen make the necessary com
plant, and on my part, las justice of the peace
will endeavor strictly to enforce the law Some
SAID to me: We understand it to be your duty, as
a public officer, to suppress it without a com
plant first being made. Here we differ, and in
vindication of myself, as magistrate, will here
say to all those who entertain such belief, that
it is not made the duty of justices of the peace
by law to issue his warrant of arrest. unless
there has first been a complaint made. and that
according to law. l allude to such public often
ces as the one above mentioned. There are
however, some public offences that peace officers
fO
suppress; such as riots, duelng, and prize fights
or where public offence has been committed in
| the presence Of peace officer or magistrate.
In order to sustain what Ihaye said, and also
to satisfy those who may think different, shall
refer to the law on the subject. Section IO4 of
an act regulating proceedings in criminal cases,
reads as follows: "When a complaint is laid
before magistrate of the commission of pub
lie offence, tryable within the county, he (the
Justice) must eXamine on oath the complainant
or prosecutor, or any witness he may produce
and take their dispositions in writing, and cause
them to be subscribed by the parties making
them." Section los of said act declares what is
necessary to be set forth in the complaint. Sec
ton LOG of said act reads thus: "If the magis-
trate be satisfied therefrom that public offence
has been committed, and that there is reasonable
ground to believe the defendant has committed
1t, he shall issue warrant of arrest" Section
l39 same act reads as follows: "When a public
offence has been committed in the presence of
the magistrate, he may by verbal order command
any person to arrest the offender, and may there
upon proceed as if the offender had been brought
before him on warrant of arrest" This last
section suppose is the law that persons who
seem to think and contend that it is the duty of
Justices Of the peace to commence actions for
public offences on their own complaint, provided
the justice has been informed of the same; but
the law does not so read; it says "when the of
fence has been committed in the presence of the
magistrate not within his hearing. or know
ledge, but when committed in his presence, he
may command any person to arrest the offender.
BUT section Cos of said act settles this question
beyond doubt, as I understand the law: GAN
proceedings and actions before Justices, re-
'corders' or mayors court, for public offence of
winch SAID courts have jurisdiction, shall be
commenced by complaint setting forth the offence
charged, with such particulars of time. nlace
person and property, as to make the defendant
TO understand distinctly the character of the of
fence complained of, and to answer the COM
plant" This last section alone would have
been sufficient to maintain the point I have ta-
ken, but Others have been cited for the benefit of
those who think different. In conclusion, will
here say that if there is any person that yet diff
fers with me on this subject, point me to the
law, and am ready and open to conviction.
Will further add that the theatrical performance
OF the Potter troupe on last Sunday night was in
open violation of law, and those that purchased
tickets, or paid money for admission fee. I refer
them to section Sd of the act to prohibit barba-
rous and noisy amusements on the Christian
sabbath L. C. REYBURN.