Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-03-15
Evening session.

The Court convened at precisely 80,
and the jury was charged by District
Attorney Kelly, who said, in brief, that
the place under trial was disorderly
house-a riotous reSort-as proven by
three competent Witnesses.
The attorney for the defense addressed
the jury. The salient points made for
the defendants were that the Flag Cot
tage was alleged, by the prosecution, to
be place of public resort for immoral
purposes, and that the peace of the
immediate neighborhood was habitually
disturbed, allegations which we're not sup
ported by the evidence. He characterized
the course of the prosecution as unfair,
and the methods of the District Attorney
as overzealously in the wrong. He
laid great stress upon the fact that there
we're no neighbors who had complained
but one, the lady who testified, and that
the disturbance complained of was not
habitual. He drew attention to the fact
that there were more than three hun
dred houses of prostitution in Los
Angeles which neither the Sheriff
nor the detectives had brought before
the bar of justice and questioned the
motives which led to the arrest of the
defendants and the employment of de-
tectives to ferret them out. At this
point Sheriff Aguirre arose and hotly
denied that detectives were employed
by him in the case. The Court
promptly ordered the Sheriff to
desist from interrupting the counsel,
which he did, and received somewhat of
a scoring at the hands of the attorney
for the defense. The defense closed
with a very humorous review of the
moral and immoral side of the world,
with q sly allusion regarding the high
morality of the prosecuting officers.
District Attorney Kelly closed the ar
gument and Judge Savage charged the
jury, drawing the case down to the ques-
tion of the Flag Cottage being disorder
lv house which habitually disturbed the
immediate neighborhood between Feb
ruary 26th and March 9TH. The jury re-
tired at minutes past 8. After being out
some forty minutes, the jury
asked for further instructions. They
were called in and the foreman
asked for full explanation of the word
"habitual." After some discussion be-
tween counsel, Judge Savage reviewed
his charge at some length, and the jury
again retired.
During the first recess of the Court the
press asked for the records of the
Court, containing the names of
the witnesses who had been SUBJ
penaed in the case, and who
had not been called upon to testify. This
would have been unpleasant reading for
these witnesses, and fortunately for them
the Judge decided against producin
them. He said: "It does seem to me
that there has been enough of notorietv
in this case, and do not think that public
interests and the ends of justice will be
subserved by giving the names to the
PRESS" He thought that unfair infer
rences might be drawn against the wit
nesses and not being called, they were
powerless to refute them. Constable
Clement was very willing to sacrifice his
fees in the matter since publicity had
been avoided.
The jury finally came in at 0:25 and
the foreman stated to the Court that
they disagreed upon verdict and stood
six for acquittal and six for conviction.
Several of the jury thought that they
could not agree in six weeks time,
while one thought they could in three
hours. The Judge sent them back for
further deliberation.
The courtroom was filled dnring the
entire evening, the seats all being oecu-
pied and the lobby crowded. The de-
PENDANTS were qniet but atten-
tive listeners. Mccormack nervous
ly twirled a plain gold ring on his
thumb, and the woman's countenance
became anxious when the jury went out.
Martin Aguirre was an interested
spectator, and the Hon. j. Marion
Brooks was prominent in the front row.