The San Antonio light. (San Antonio, Tex.) 1883-1886, 1885-02-24
MALFEASANCE In OFFICE.
INVESTIGATION BY THE CITY
COUNCIL.
The Evidence Adduced In the Trial
OF City Attorney Newton
Continued.
IuDGE l.. ". wAITHALL.

Answer. | am an attorney ut law.
Q. How long have you been lawyer?
A. don't think you should make me
tell. II is good many years.
q. If the witness has any objection to
tell will not press the question? A. 1t
is more than 20 years.
q. You have had good deal Of ex-
perienceS A. Yes; ordinary experience.
q. Were you consulted In reference
TO our city charter and whether any
other ordinance could be drawn to pun
ish these gaming cases. A. Major
that the Recorder had passed on some
case. That case was appealed to the
District court and the District court de-
clared the ordinance invalid.
q. You examined the city charter in
reference to that matter? A. exam
ined II and gave my opinion.
q. Could an ordinance be drawn up
under that city charter to punish these
gaming cases? A. That was my opinion
at the time that 1t could not.
Cross-examlned: q. What was the
matter? A. Well, | am unable to state
now the way In which | expressed then,
but think 1t needed legislation on the
part of the Legislature to enable the city
to pass an ordinance to punish gaming,
and without that they could not do II.
That was my opinion. | cannot say I
read II with any great deal Of care, still
! came To that conclusion.
q. Were you shown the city charter,
section 1882 a. don't remember Ii by
sectors. We examined everything. In
other words, my conclusion was that
Noonan decided right.
q. What was the defect In the ordi-
nanceY A. Well the ordinance was
invalid, because 1t seemed to me TO be
In conflict with the State law; / don't
remember now.
q. Did IL not put more penalty than
the State law did2 A. | believe that
was IL.
q. You could then frame n new State
law and thus bring IL Within A. My
conc fusion was that you could not.
cannot now say how IL was arrived at
II; | think | could maintain it by argu-
ment that 1t could not be done.
q. As a lawyer, you know II city
charter subjects more fine than the State
law, 1t Is void? A. think 1t is ex-
pressly provided by the State laws of
Texas.
q. DO you know whether that ordi-
nance puts more or less punishment than
the State law? A. More.
q. Could 1t have been amended? A..
| just remember my conclusion, that you
could not frame an ordinance without
further Legislature on the part of the
State.
Iiy defendants counsel:
q. Was that In reference to the char
ter ofiurisdlction given to the Recorder
A. ! believe it was. | am now stating
recollections and results, but ! don't
recollect the processes by which |
arrived at then.
City Clerk Claudon was again put
under examination. by counsel for the
prosecution:
e. DO you know the original hand
writing? A. No, sir, don't; it seems
to me to be too well written to be the
handwriting of the City Attorney.
q. There is a difference of handwrit-
ing here, Is there noty A.. There are
amendments and scratching out.
q. Who scratched the bill? A.
don't know whose handwriting 1t is.
q. Had you it for substitute for the
bill entirely. A. No. sir; that is the
substitute.
I,is Honor. the Mayor, Bryan Callag-
han:
q. Were you acting as Recorder at
the time Of 1883? A. was.
q. Did you pass upon the ordinance
that has just been spoken of? A. did.
q. What was the decision? A. That
II was null and void
q. On what groundy A. Because it
was In conflict with the State law and
the city charter.
q. Were you not consulted by the
CITY Attorney. and your advice and
counsel taken as to whether an ordinance
could be drawn which could be yalidY
A. Yes, and came to the conclusion
that without legislation we could not
do it.