The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1879-03-05

tiAClist IsN iilk A'ttii CoHiiiith'' w wv
corporate limits If the town, and the
fine doubled, $780, could only be
tried by indictment.
Whew! what fi,msy logic and far
fetched conclusions. No part of said
act pronounces any penalty whatever
for selling liquor without license. and
neither does any part of said act di-
rectly or indirectly by implication or
otherwise confer any jurisdiction upon
the Police Judge, 10 try persons for
selling liquor without license.
Section seven only pronounces a
penalty against saloon keepers, coffee
house keepers and tavern Keepers, who
violate the licenses granted them by
Trustees OF the town. Ii the Police
Judge has any right 10 try person
for selling liquor without license If is
conferred hy section lS. subdivision 4,
page ;. Criminal Code OF Practice.
which gives Police Judges the right TO
uy persons for misdemeanor when
the punishment is fine not exceeding
500. Now selling liquor without Ii
ceuse is a misdemeanor, and this sec
ton gives Police Judges right to try
misdemcanors where the fine is not
exceeding 500, aud the penalty for
selling liquor without license is fine
of $50 for each and every offense,
then where is the necessity of a Grand
jury? Admitting that section 10
doubles the ofense and makes it $40,
there is still no need of Grand Jury,
for section SOC, Criminal Code. before
quoted in full, says NO indictments
shall be necessary in prosecutions in
Police Courts where the ine is not ex-
ceeding sl00." Does $40 exceed
500? Such is the logic of "Splove."
Our friend "Splove" knew better, he
did what he did we guess, at the earn
est solicitation of Hon. Judge Charles
Lawyer Morehead, who has got him.
self into trouble and Is anxious to get
ont and makes desperate lunges that
way, which only entangle him more
and more.
In our issue of January 29ih, after
referring to the suits brought against
Judee Morehead, we inserted the fol.
lowing comment:
w have heard great deal of com
plaint OF the arbitrary manner in which
justice is dealt out by Jud Morehead
hut. of our own knowledge, krow
nothing. We understand that in the
case of Blackjack, Molehead was Pros,
ecuiing Attorney as well as Judge, aud
examined the witnesses and conducted
the case generally, and then decided il
himself. refusing a Jury. 1t is report
ed also that he had Grand jury i'm
panelled and lot of indictments
made out and the parties arrested by
virtue thereof This, il true. is rath-
er wide latitude for Police Judge of
a small! village, and he surely needs
taking down button hole or two.
In response to that comment, Judge
C. Lawyer Morehead did not deny
that he acted as Prosecuting Attor-
ney a. well as Judge and examined
the Witnesses and conducted the case
generally and then decided it himself"
" hen a plaintiff alleges a certain
state Of facts and defendant fails to
deny, said statements are in law con-
sidered true, hence we see that these
statements must be true ard hence we
feel justified in our comment then
made TO the effect that he ought TO be
taken down a button hole or two.
Imagine Judge Morehead issues the
warrant, c. Lawyer Morehead goes
round and counsels the witnesses to
see what they know so as TO know
what questions to ask and thus avoid
bringing out anything favorable TO de-
PENDANT. Then imagine Judge More
head on the bench listening TO and
passing upon the legality, force, &c,
of the evidence ELECTED from the wit
nesses by c. Lawyer Morehead. Then
when all the evidence is heard imagine
C. Lawyer Morehead arguing the case
and pleading the cause of the Com
monweslth before Judge Morehead
and you have ludicrous scene, a
stigma, and a farce upon
the very name OF court of justice.
As the question has been raised. it
would not be improper to give our
readers some idea of the jurisdiction of
the Police Judge OF South Carrollton.
The only act we have found or know
of, is an act approved January. 1854,
acts 1851. vol. I, page 2s6. Eve
do not say there are no other acts in
reference thereto, but if so, we have
not been able thus far to find them. }
The act says His jurisdiction, both
civil and criminal shall be the same As
that which now is or may be conferred
by law on Justices of the Peace.
This act gives him jurisdiction the
same as Justices of the Peace had
2Sth of January, 1854. The effort
to give him the same jurisdiction that