Sacramento daily record-union., 1889-09-12
EVERYTHING GOES.
JUDGE BUCKLEY DECIDES HE HAS NO
JURISDICTION
Over the Postofiice Pit, and Discharges
Bragg and Marsh, the
Gamblers.

the police and gamblers, as well as other
citizens, not alone in this city, but all over
the State. At San Francisco the nimble-
fingered fraternity are said to be watching
the question which has arisen here with as
much interest as those who are on the
scene. All in the Courtroom seemed to
be extremely interested one way or the
other. Even the half-dozen of old sinners
in the dock were aroused and tried their
best to get within hearing of the witnesses
and officials.
The defense was represented by Grove
L johnson, Charles T. Jones and Wilbur
F. George, while City Attorney Church,
Hon. George E. Blanchard and Chauncey
d. Dunn conducted the prosecution.
The complaint against j. w. Marsh was
that of gaming, while the charge against
Thomas Bragg was that of playing and
betting against a prohibited game.
Mr.. johnson, after glancing at the COM
plants, stated that, so far as the defense
was concerned, they were willing that both
cases be considered together, as the same
state of facts applied to each.
City Attorney Chlrch wanted each case
taken up separately, and as one was an ex-
animation case and the other trial, the
Court ordered that each be considered on
| its own merits.
The Marsh examination case was then
taken up, and Mr.. johnson moved to dis
miss the proceeding, discharge the defend
ant and release his bondsmen, on the
ground that the prisoner was arrested on
United States property by a policemen of
| Sacramento, without any warrant given
him by any officer of this State or the
United States and without any complaint
being issued by any Court of said State or
United States, etc.
In support of the motion the defense
offered to prove all the facts contained in
| the motion, and also to show that the prop
erty was purchased by the United States
Government. The motion was made at
this time to save any rights the defense
| might then have.
City Attorney Church said he thought
| that as long as the matter of jurisdiction
was going to be brought up, the question
ought to be settled. If the arrest was pro-
nounced to be legal by the Court, then they
could go ahead with the examination.
Mr.. Johnson said he wanted to hear the
facts in the case before the question of ju.
risdiction was settled, and held that this
very thing was done in the celebrated
TerryNagle case.
Judge Buckley thought the facts ought to
be brought out, and so ordered.
Officer Coffey then took the stand and
related the facts about the arrest, as pub
lished in the RECORD UNION, and also de-
scribed the manner in which the game was
run. On cross-examination the witness
answered that he did not at present, or at
the time of the arrest, hold any official po-
sition, other than that of policeman of
| Sacramento. He had no warrant with him,
| noin hoA HlaA
the men arrested. He thought he had
right to arrest them without any such pa
| pers.
Officers Farrell and Stafford were called,
but they could tell simply what officer
Cotfey testified to, and the defense offered
to admit that they would so testify The
| gaming outfit was then introduced in evil
| dance.
The defense then admitted that the game
was banking game, and the prosecution
rested.
Mr.. Johnson then renewed his motion
previously made, and called the Courts at
tention to the fact that it is incumbent
upon the prosecution to show jurisdiction.
| He was willing, however, to allow the rul-
ing to be reserved until the facts in the case
had come out.
R. T. Cohn, Deputy County Auditor and
| Recorder, was then called. He had the 122d
Book of Deeds and Records of Sacramento
County, to show that the land on which
the game had been operated was decided by
| Patrick Montague, Bishop of the Diocese
of Sacramento, to the United States of
| America. The book was offered in evil
dence by the defense, but an objection was
| raised by the City Attorney, and the oues-
| ton was argued by Mr.. Blanchard for the
prosecution, who claimed that it was ir-
relevant and immaterial. 1t would not
oust the question of jurisdiction.
The objection was afterwards withdrawn,
and the deed was then read.
The defense asked if the City Attorney
would admit, on the part of the prosecution,
| that the property in question was IN the
hands of United States officers, but upon a
refusal being made, continuance till 1:30
| o'clock in the afternoon was asked for by
the counsel for the defense, in order to
bring either Postmaster Stephens or Deputy
Leake into Court to settle the question.
| A recess was then ordered until 1:30 P. NJ
| At the afternoon session w. s. Leake,
Assistant Postmaster, was examined re-
earding what had been done with the new
Postoffiee site since its purchase by the
| Government. His examination was very
] tedious one, owing to the many technical
objections interposed.
The arguments then commenced. 1t
was agreed that the attorneys on either
side should alternate, the prosecution re-
serving the right, however, 10 speak last.
| City Attorney Church opened for the
people, by stating that the whole question
was simply as to whether or not this Court
| had jurisdiction in the matter of an offense
committed on the Government lot. before
mentioned. He thought that it did. for
several reasons, viz that it had not been
shown by the defense that the Government
really owns the lot. and that, even if that
were the case, the defendants were amena-
| bic TO the laws of this State, by reason of the
powers given in the Political Code, which
controls and regulates the cession of land
10 the Government. He asked that the
defendants either be held to answer before
the State or Federal authorities-w hich-
ever was proper.
Grove L. johnson, for the defense, at.
| tackled that section of the Political Code
cited by Mr.. Church, by which the latter
| claimed the State reserved the right to
make arrests on land which it had ceded to
the Government. Mr.. Johnson read the
section slowly, and called attention TO the
| fact that il said: The Legislature consents
to the purchase of land by the Government
upon the express condition that
such criminal process as may issue under
the authority of the State, against any per-
son charged with crime may be SerUed aud
eIecttted therein IN the same MODE and man.
ner and by the same officers, as if the pur-
chase had not been made" This,
he said, was fatal to the stand taken by the
prosecution. II was all right TO serre pro-
cess there for crime committed elsewhere,
but it was not lawful to make arrests with
out such proces or when the crime was
committed on the Government land The
attorney cited a number of authorities in
support of his position, and then brauohed
off on another line of defense. He cited
decisions and authorities by the dozen
which he claimed covered his points. Par
ticular among these was Massachusetts
case, wherein it was decided by the United
States Supreme Court that children who
resided on a certain Government tract
within that State could not receive the
benefits of tie Massachusetts public schools.
Another case, from Ohio, was TO The effect
that persons residing on a certain piece OF
Government land could not vote at a muni-
cipal election.
Ex-Judge Blanchard then spoke for
while on the other side of the question. He
cited the decision of United States Circuit
Judge Lorenzo Sawyer, in one of the side
issues of the famous Sharon case, wherein
| tho Enurt said stthat 1apd xrh,nb a-ae 80,