Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-11-12
GIVEN BY A HIGH COURT.
DECISIONS IN CASES CARRIED
UP FROM CHATHAM.

Opinions In Cases Tor n eep1nR open
Barrooms on sundsy-The City and
the Street Railways.
The judgment Of the Supreme Court re-
versing the judgment OF the Chatham Su-
periOr Court in the case ofLester, Mayor,
etc, for contempt, was announced In the
NEWS yesterday. The decision by Justice
Hall is as follows:
The MAYOR OF the city of Savannah. who is
eX-ofticio the presiding Judge of a court of
! record, Is not subject to the subpoena duces
| tecum, comm auding him to bring into the SUI
| perior Court 1.-THE Information docket" OF HIS
/ court. to be used III evidence before the grand
/ Jury. either IN specified care or generally,
and that officer, in refusing to obey such a
! precept, is not guilty Of contempt OF a process
| Of the court, FOR which he is liable to be pun
| ished.
(a.) The Official action of the Mayors Court
/ can be shown only by it's records, and II that
! acil0n becomes material in an investigation
/ before the grand jury in any specified case. II
! should he shown by copy thereof duly GER
/ tiled By the Clerk under the seal of the court.
.0.l The supervisory control Of the superior
/ Court over inferior judlcatOries exists only
! Tor specified purposes, viz: Either to correct
/ errors IN their proceedings in a particular
| case, or to command them to fulfill their Off
/ clal duties IN such a case, where, from any
cause, a defect OF legal justice would ensue
! from failure or improper discharge Of such
/ duties, or 10 prohibit or arrest Illegal pro-
! cee1inRs by any officer of such courts, where
/ no other legal remedy or relief is given aud
! where such Interference Is required Dv some
/ pflnC!pic OF right, necessity ana justice. This
| jurisdiction is exercised by statutory writs.
! such as certiOrsri. mandamus or prohibition.
| But an entire record cannot be removed from
one court to another by notice to the OIL
/ GERS 10 produce it or by a subpoena duces te-
| cum directed TO and served upon them.
(c.) While ca il member Of the grand jury is
/ under obligation TO make dihgent inquiry,
/ and 10 present ;ruly all infractl0ns vi the
/ criminal law " hlCh may be given the body in
/ charge or May come to the knowledge of any
/ OF them, touching the service in which they
/ are en- gagged, and while the powers Of that
/ body are lnQuisitorlal TO a certain extent. yet
! they have to be exercised within well defined
| limits. They can find no bill nor make any
! presen tmeut, except upon the testimony OF
! witnesses sworn in q particular case, where
! the party is charged with a specified offense.
/ nor ca q they subpoena witness to testify be-
! fore them as to his genera! knowledge OF viD
/ lations of the penal laws, when the fact to he
| Investigated has not been discovered by the
/ grand jury or any member thereof, and when
! that body knows nothing of any person con
/ nected with or guilty OF the Ohense,
/ td.) 1t is not lntimated that the States pros
! ecuting officer may moi If he sees proper TO do
! So make search for evidence and secure its
! forthcoming by serving subpGnas upon wit
| nesshs IN anticipation of empannelipR and
| qualification OF the grand jury before whom
/ the matter IS 70 be investigated, provided he
! states in the subpoena the names of the par
! ties and the Oflense to be Investigated.
tel Ina proper case asubppna duces tecum
may issue IN a cause pending before the grand
| jury or to be brought before that body
SELLING LIQUOR ON SUNDAY.
The decision of the Superior Court in
the case OF Seyden, for keeping open a
| tippling house on Sunday, was affirmed.
| The case was reported at length in the
| NEWS when it was tried here. The SUI
! preme Court says:
! HALL, j
/. The verdict was demanded by the evil
dence.
(a.) Where the accused admitted that he
| opened his tipping house on SUNDAY and fur
| nIshed the bottle Of liquor for which he re-
| ceiyed Soc, 1t was no Qualification of this act
| TO state that two parties approached him, one
! of whom stated that he was col and his COM
panIon had chill, and That defendant be-
| lieved such was the fact and furnished the
| spokesman with the liquor.
2. There was no error in refusing TO charge
as follows: If the tipping house was opened
for any cause or purpose which the law would
| Justify or excuse, and If any of those facts be
| shown, the defendant would be entitled to be
acquitted"
a. Nor in refusing to charge as follows:
| ''lf the defendant opened the tipping house
| in order to give whisky to a man who he be-
| lieved was sick, and If in good faith it was
| opened for no other cause or purpose, he would
be entitled to be acquitted"
| 3D. Nor in refusing to charge that the jury
| had the right to determine whether the facts
| showed that he was justified in opening his
| tipping house on Sunday.
| (c.) IL fire should break out on the premi-
| ses or in the vicinity the proprietor would he
! justlhed in opening the house to remove his
! goods to a place of safety, or If one on the
| spot or IN the vicinity should be stricken down
! with sudden illness, requiring prompt treat
| ment. and the house should be opened for the
| purpose of furnishing liquor as a remedy, and
| the liquor should be supplied in suitable guam
| title-, then the act of opening the house on
| sunday would be excused. But no such emer-
| gency appeared in this case.
9. The omission to charge AS to the force and
! effect to he given TO the defendants statement
| did not hurt him, and will not require re-
versal, it not appearing that the attention OF
| the court was called thereto or that any re-
| quest for him TO charge thereon was made,
4. here, in criminal case, the defendant
introduced no evidence, but made a state
| mcnt, he was entitled to conclude the argu-
/ ment in the case; and this is an important
right, and it's denial viii generally cause a
| reversal of the decision OF the lower court.
But where the evidence demanded verdict
| of guilty, an erroneous ruling will not require
| a reversal, except where the presiding Judge
| has expressed or intimated an opinion on the
| fact OF the case.
BARS OPEN ON SUNDAY.
The judgment in the case of Klug, also
! charged with keeping open a tipping
house or Sunday, is matter of some in
terest. The decision is as follows:
! JACKSON, c. }.
| /. Where 1t was shown that the door OF the
| tipplng house was open on Sunday and the
| proprietor's clerk and another were seen in
| fence around the house, the gate was also
Open, a verdict OF guilty of keeping open a
| tipping house on sunday was not contrary to
| law and evidence.
2 Where defendant in criminal case
| made statement In his own behalf il was
competent to contradict this by showing con-
| hictng statements made by him before the
| magisl rate; nor does the rule recurring a
! witness to have his attention called to the
/ time and place OF making such statement, in
order to render them admissible, apply to the
| defendants statement. SO Ca, sos
IA Besides. in this case. the defendant did
| know the time and place. and MADE an effort
! to explain his former statemtrts
! 3. There WAS no error in the following
! charge. as to the defendants statement,
! especially in % clear case: "Ihe defendant's
| statement Is not under oath; no penalty is
| prescribed for making false statement; YOU
have the right TO accept the statement IN
! preference TO sworn testimony, or YOU have
the right to reject II. A jury should not ac-
cept II statement because II is made by the
defendant; they should not reject it because
! 1t is not sworn to. They should examine il,
weigh it; Is 1t reasonable, Is 1t probable, is II
| consistent with the facts that seem to be
| provedY And after thus weighing 1t give IL
! that effect you think II ought to have" 73
| Ga, 577.
4. Where neither the clerk Of the accused
nor the other person seen in the house wore
| produced as witnesses on the trial. there wac
no error in stating TO the jury that the de-
] fpudauf had Lh0 - IN