Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-05-25
THE FLAG COTTAGE.
One Jury Dismissed, and Another
sum mOned.

summoned.
The case of Charles and Maud McCor-
mack, charged with keeping house OF
ill fame, known as the Flag Cottage, came
up in Justice Austin's Court yesterday
morning, and after the jury-box had
been filed with jurymen, the attorney
for defendants objected to the whole
panel, on the ground that it had been
summoned by the Sheriff, who had ex-
pressed an opinion to the effect that the
defendants were guilty. The return to
the venire showed that it had been made
by Deputy Sheriff Hammel, and after a
short argument recess was taken, IN
order that the Sheriff and those who had
summoned the jury might be called and
questioned as to whether they had ex-
pressed any opinions or had been biased
in any way when they summoned the jury
men.
At half post IL O'Clock the court recon-
vened and Deputy Sheriff P. A. Reel was
placed on the stand. He testified that
he did not know the McCormacks, and
had never had conversation with the
| Sheriff about them or their case. VIM.
Hammel, the Deputy Sheriff, had asked
| him to summon sixteen or seventeen
| good citizens of East Los Angeles to serve
on the Jury, and he had done so. Before
he summoned the jurors he had looked
in the Great Register to obtain their ad-
dresses and initials. He had not sum.
moned them with view of convicting the
defendants, but had simply selected men
who were good citizens.
| Deputy Sheriff Hammel testified that
he had not summoned any of the jurors.
He had intended to do 30, but gave the
venire to Mr.. Avila who served it. Be-
fore doing so, however, he had placed on
list the names of several men whom he
knew were good citizens. He had never
talked with the Sheriff about the case,
and had no prejudice against the defen-
dants.
Deputy Sheriff Avila testified that he
bad served the summons, but did not 60
further south than Fifth street. He had
no prejudice against the defendants.
| Sheriff Aguirre testified that he knew
the McColmacks, but he had not formed
any opinion as to their guilt or innocence
on this charge. In the former case,
when they were charged with keeping a
| disorderly house, he had formed an
opinion, and it was to the effect that
they had kept a disorderly house. In
this last case the venire had been hand
ed in to his Office by the District Attor-
ney. He had not asked that it be given
him, and, personally, he had nothing to
do with the summoning of the jurymen.
He had never said that he thought Nc
Cormack was guilty of this last charge.
Charles Mccormack, the defendant,
was placed on the stand and testified
that he had never had a conversation
with the Sheriff about this charge, but
just after he had been arrested the first
time the Sheriff had told him that he had
better move or else he would have to
prosecute every day. The Sheriff said
| that the Supervisors had instructed him
to prosecute the case. Continuing. he
said: 81 have been running the Flag
Cottage for about two years. Before
that l lived in San Francisco. The Flag
Cottage is restaurant and nothing more,
l have never rented room except to
parties who stayed all night as man and
wife. / never said that drummers and
other mems wives came there and rented
rooms and that 1 did not see what they
did. never told this to Judge Sexton.
He asked me whether there were
drummers and other mems wives who
stayed there. l said l didn't know.
They were represented to me to be man
and wife, and 1 didn't know whether
they were or not"
Sheriff Aguirre took the stand again
and testified that there were fifteen
rooms in the Flag Cottage, according to
card which had been printed for distri-
| button.
G. w. Sexton testified that McCor.
| mack had told him that he kept first
class house and that business men, trav-
cling men, salesmeD. railroad men and
sporting men came there with other
mems wives and had "a - of time"
| Witness said he then asked him if they
did not go there for other purposes and
| if they did not have something else
He said that when they went into their
rooms he did not go in after them to see
| what they did.
This closed the testimony and Justice
Austin took the matter of the motion to
discharge the jurors, under considera-
| tionSuntil 2 O'Clock, at which time he al
lowed the motion and ordered new
jury summoned by the Constable of the
court, to be returned this morning.