Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-08-09

paid the bills for repairs on Mesick's orders.
=, Any alterations and repairs he always turned
over to men who Mesick employed. Hardly
month goes by without more or less repair
| ing. He visited the place at least once a
week to look after the drainage. He said he
at all times had endeavorsd, both by caution
ing the tenants flashing the pipes and clean
ing the troughs, to keep the premises from
being ofansivs. Cinnamon would be China
men, however, aud he had not at all times
succeeded as well SIS he had desired All he
asked was fair play and that justice be DONE
He hoped the jury befcre they rendered their
verdict would visit the premises and see for
themselves.
The deFense here rested their case. The
City Attorney said he was willing to submit
the case without argument. Mr.. Brown sug-
gested the propriety Of the jury's viewing
the premises, and several Of tie jury express
ing desire to do 30, they were put in charge
of officer Eldred, who took them to see the
property complained of. After their return,
MIR. Brown, attorney for the dsfend2ne,
made lengthy argument, claiming that the
prosecution was all wrong that MIR. Chan
dler himself had committed no nuisance. and
act he, but the Chinese tenants, should be
arrested and punished. In his speech he ad-
mittsd the nuisance, and claimed that if it
was as bad as sworn 60 by the physicians,
then the authorities had right to tesr down
the property. Go after the tenants or own
ers, not those who act only in the capacity Of
rent collectors. He thought the Cinnamon
ought to be put outside Of the city liInits. If
tbs authorities do theis duty they would
move in this matter, and it would be doue.
Chinatown is an eye-sOre. They pay no
taxeF, create and roll ID tilJb. They should
be removed or prosecuted for their filth, rot
4,
to abate this nuisance until they are removed
from the city limits, or until they are brought
into Court and severely panished.
The City Attorfsy in reply to the remarks
made by the opposing counsel quoted the law
governing such cases, and as he warmed up
his subject grew eloquent. His argument
vas strong, forcible, and q reflection OF the
general sentiment Of all those who have the
best interest of the city az heart. In the
coarse Of his remarks hs said the defendant
comes into court to-day and asks ~hy don't
you arrest the Cinnamon, not me? a little
over year ago we arrested six Cinnamon tor
the same ofense on these same premises, and
this saue Individual defended them, saying
thea: "Wby do you arrest the Chinamsn? L
SIN the man 20 blame; why don't you arrest
me?"
After the City Attorney had finished his
argument the Court instructed tbs jury.
Among other instructions he said: =" II the
jury believe from the evidence that Il. {.
Chandler YVES, during the time stated il COM
plant, the agent Of, aud had full control and
management of ssid premises, and exercised
control over the same, and that there was
kept and maintained upon eeid premises, with
q full Inowle lge Of defendant of the manner
in which said premises were ussd, and after
notice thereof, foul and noxious privy, foul
cesspool, or unscund, unWholesome and putrid
filth and matter, then it viii be your duty to
find tbs defendant guilty as charged in the
complaint"
TIE jury retired st sos P. NJ. As soon as
they were locked in the jnry-room Joseph
Goddard was selected foreman. The first
ballot stood ten for conviction, two for &C.
quittal. The second ballot eleven for convie-
ton, one for acquittal. Before the third bal
lot could be taken the juryman who had stood
out on the second ballot said. "Boys, guess
[ am wrong; let's make it unanimous. Upon
that the jury returned to the courtroom and
rendered verdict Of guilty, as charged.
The jury was discharged, and Mr.. Chandler
win appear for sentence this morning.