Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-11-29
SHINE ,EM uP.
A Verdict of Acquittal In the Case of the
Bootblacke


Bootblscks
The cases of Antoine and Joe Cordona,
charged with violating Ordinance No. II.
by keeping bootblack stand on the side
walk on Third street, between ] and K,
was tried in the Police Court yesterday be-
fore jury, and resulted in the acquittal of
the defendants. The complaining wit
ness in the case was James Senate, proprie-
tor of the Mississippi Kitchen, who claims
that the stand obstructs the view of his
place. The case was a highly important
one however as il was understood that if
there was conviction in this case, efforts
would be made TO remove other stands.
Another very important feature of the case
was that in case of a conviction the valid
ity of the new city Ordinance No 232,
which was adopted by the Board of Trus-
tees, TO cure the defect in all of the other
city ordinances, would be tested and passed
up 10 the Superior Court The proceed
ings in the case show how citizens regard
this particular ordinance.
Both sides were represented by able
, counsel, who contested every point in the
case. The examination of jurors as to their
qualifications to serve took considerable
time and was decidedly interesting. E. C.
Hart conducted the case on the part Of the
prosecution and Grove l.. Johnson repre-
sented the defendants. Each questioned
the jurors closely, and some of the answers
developed curious ideas in regard to the
duties of a Juror under his oath.
Besides the usual interrogations in regard
to giving defendants fair and impartial
trial and the benefit of a reasonable doubt
Mr.. Johnson also asked each juror if he
had any prejudice in favor of the saloon
and restaurant business as against the boot
black business, and if they had any pref
udice against boot-black stands on the side
walk.
One juror said that he was friend of
Mr.. Senate and hoped he would be success
| to his place which maintained what he con-
sidered nuisance. and if he won this case
the juror would bring another case. He
was excused.
Another juror said that he considered
bootblack stand on the sidewalk a nui-
ssnce, and the evidence that might be
| introduced would have no effect on him.
His mind was made up. He was promptly
excused.
Other jurors believed that any ordinance
against having bootblack stands on the
sidewalk was unjust; that persons ought
| to have as much right to use four feet of
space on the sidewalk for blacking boots
as for the display of wares and merchan-
disc. This class of jurors was excused by
the prosecution.
One man said that he had known Mr..
Senate for a long time, and had bust
| ness relations with him, and if selected
| as juror he would try and show him
some courtesy Mr.. Johnson used one of
his peremptory challenges on this juror.
| Still another citizen who had been called
- l. i.
ment that he would convict any man who
would call for jury trial in the Police
Court, no matter what the evidence might
be. The Court excused the Juror without
waiting for challenge.
| A panel of thirty jurors was exhausted
| by noon, and ii was ordered that fifteen
more jurors be summoned to be present at
half-past one O'Clock. When the Court re-
sumed its session. this panel was also ex-
hausted, and still only ten competent
jurors had been accepted 1t was then
stipulated by counsel that the case be tried
before ten jurors. The following gentle
men were sworn to try the case: WI.
Grafmiller, John Watt, n. ]. Nathan, G. K.
Dougherty, F. Gehring, Clarence Nelson,
| Z. A. Burr, ?. A. Miller and H. Marks.
Mr.. Hart then stated to the jury that the
prosecution proposed to prove that the de-
| PENDANTS were guilty of violation of Sec
tions Two and Three of Ordinance No. II,
| because they were not using the space on
the sidewalk for displaying goods, wares
and merchandise, within the meaning of
| the Ordinance.
Section Two, of Ordinance II, reads as
follows:
| No person or business firm shall use anv DOR
| ton of the sidewalk in any part of the city for
any purpose whatever, excepting only for the
display OF goods. wares and merchandise, and
| for the purpose mentioned in Section Two of
| this chapter; and for the purpose of displaying
| goods, four feet in width, commencing at the
! front line of the lot, may be used; provided
however, that merchants and others receiving
and delivering goods shall be allowed six hours
from the time they are deposited until they are
removed; and, provided further, that a space of
six feet in width shall at all times be kept clear
Tor the accommodation of persons passing.
James Senate was put upon the stand for
the prosecution and testified that the de-
| PENDANTS conducted a bootblack stand on
| Third street which was II feet long, feet
! high and occupied three feet of space on
! the sidewalk from the wall; that he kept
a restaurant at 1921 Third street and lived
up stairs at 1923; that he owned both
places and rented the lower floor of No.
1923 for saloon that the bootblack stand
stood fourteen feet from the doorway lead
| ing to his residence.
Mr.. Hart then offered in evidence Ordi-
|
| tees June 81, 1872, re-enacted and re-en-
forced by Ordinance No. 232. passed. July
16. 1888. re-enacting Ordinance No. II.
Also, Ordinance No. 232, passed July l6.
1888, by the Board of Trustees.
Mr.. Johnson objected TO the testimony
in the following language: Il object TO
| the testimony as immaterisl, irrelevant
and incompetent and multifarious in It's
offer, as being an offer of two ordinances
at once, which is improper and not allowed
under the law. A person can only offer
one distinct piece of evidence at a time
and object to this on the ground that two
separate and distinct pieces Of evidence.
| two separate and distinct ordinances are
offered at the same time. | further object
without waiying this first objection, to the
| Introduction of Ordinance No. II, on the
| ground that it is immaterial, irrelevant and
| incompetent in that no proper foundation
has been shown for the Introduction of Or
| diDance No. II, in that it does not appear
to have been published as required by law,
or passed as required by law, nor does il
appear to have been printed or published
in any book authorized by law, or by the
Board of Trustees and further that by the
judgment of this Court on three different
occasions, this year, il has been decided
that Ordinance No. II was not legally
| adopted. and is not a legal ordinance.
And specially object to the introduction
of Ordinance No. 232 on the ground that
it is immaterial, irrelevant and incompe.
tent, in that no proper foundation has been
laid for its introduction, in that no proof
has been offered showing that it has been
passed or published as provided by law in
any way, shape, form or manner; and fur
| ther that it is entirely immaterial, irrele.
| want and incompetent in this case, because
the complaint does not show facts sufficient
to constitute cause of action, and because
Ordinance No 232 is not mentioned in this
complaint"
! Mr.. Hart insisted on the admission of
the evidence, arguing that Ordinance No
232, which continued in force Ordinance
No. II, was in the nature of a supple
mental ordinance, and the complaint was
drawn up for a violation of Ordinance No
II, and ordinances amendatory of and sup
elemental to it.
Judge Buckley took that view of it. over
ruled the objection, and admitted the or3i-
| nances in evidence.
The prosecution then rested its case
Mr.. johnson made the following motion:
] move that the Court instruct the Jury to
acquit the defendant, on the ground of the
total failure on the part of the prosecution
to prove that any part of Ordinance No IL