Daily Los Angeles herald., 1882-03-23
TRIAL OF JACOB PHILIPPI.
Second Dsy-0ass Opened for tho Defense

TRIAL OF JACOB PHILIPPI.
Second Day-Cass Opened for tho Defense
The trial Of Jacob Philippi wa
resumed before City Justice ADAM
yesterday morning. The Cour
room, as on the previous day, wal
crowded. Col. Godfrey, OF counse
for the defense, before opening fo
his side, suggested that all newspa
pers that make comments b.
which the verdict of the jury
might be affected or Influenced
should be fined for contempt o
Court. In support of his sug
gestion Col. Godfrey cited the &C.
tlon of Judge Belden in finipf
contempt of Court in publishing
statements which would prejudice
the minds OF the jury. The Cour,
took the matter under considera.
tion.
The defense then offered in evi.
dence the charter of the City oil
Los Angeles. This was objected
to as being immaterial and irrele-
want. After q hot discussion be.
tween the attorneys the OBJ.
objection was sustained. Mr.. w.
w. Robinson was then called as q
witness for the defense. Mr.. Rob.
inson testified that he had. issued
licenses to Mr.. Philippi for three
years. The defense then asked him
several questions with regard to
the authority by which he b ad is
sued the license, all of which were
obj jscted to and the objections sus.
tanned. The official record con-
tanning the last license issued to
Mr.. Philippi was then brought
into court.
The defense then offered in evil
dsnoe a city ordinance providing
for the licensing OF various busi-
nesses in the city of Los Angeles,
including saloons, to transact their
business and making no exception
of Sundays. The reading of this
ordinance before the jury was OBJ
jected to by the prosecution, and
after a stormy discussion the Court
dismissed the jury while the ordi.
nance was read, in order to ascsr.
tain whether 1t should be intro.
duced In evidence. The ordinance
was read to the Court, and Col.
Godfrey began an argument
to show why it should be
admitted in evidence. He stated
that they should base their defense
upon the proposition that this or.
dinance under the city charter re-
'pealed the State law. Col. God.
frey occupied till noon with his ar.
gument to show why this ordi-
nance should be allowed to 60 be.
fore the jury in evidence. The
Court then ruled against it, sus-
tanning the objection, and the jury
was called In and the Court ad-
JOuiucu lii LILO T. M
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Court convened at that hour
and Mr.. Godfrey arose to read
from the charter of the city. This
was objected to and the objection
sustained. Mr.. Godfrey then read
Section 1862 of the Penal Code to
the effect that 1t was q disputable le
presumption to premise that d :
fendant violated a law with ami.
tent to violate the law. From this
he went on to argue that though it
had been shown that the defend.
ant was aware that his
saloon was open on Sunday last,
that it gave no right to presume
that the violation was made with
a wilful intent to violate the law.
He further stated that IL WAS on a
question of intent that the case
was to be decided, and he again
asked TO be allowed to introduce
the charter in order to chow what
its provisions were with regard to
keeping saloons. as 1t affected the
intent OF the defendant in this vic.
lation. The objection to this was
also sustained.
Mr.. White then stated that the
defendant could not be convicted
unless it was proved that he vio-
lated the law with deliberate and
malicious intent. And that in or.
der to prove what his intent was
they would offer in evidence the
ordinance governing the matter ol
licenses, to show what the defend.
ant believed himself to be acting
under. The objection to this was
again sustained on the ground ol
its being immaterial and irrele-
want.
The examination Of Mr.. Robin.
son was then proceeded with by
the defense. He was asked wheth'
er he knew of q resolution OF the
city requiring the closing of sa.
looms during certain hours. This
was objected to and objection sus.
tanned.
The defense then offered in evi.
dence an ordinance providing fol
the closing OF saloons during GER
tain hours and making no distinc.
tion between Sundays and Other
days. This was objected to or
same grounds and objection sus'
tained.
The defence also offered In evi.
csnce, the city charter, act of the
Legislature of 1875 20 show the
power Of the city to regulate the
keeping of saloons in the city o.
Los Angeles. This was met with
the same objection and same rul'
ing,
The defense then offered reso.
luton Of the Council providing fol
the time and number Of hours
when saloons in this city shall be
closed on Sunday, for the purpose
of showing that the Council, under
the charter, has regulated the mat
ter of closing saloons on Sunday
and that the defendant did not
have his saloon open within the