Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-08-02
MAUD WAS MAD,
AND SHE GAVE OFFICER FRANKS A
PIECE OF HER MIND.
Charge of vagrancy That Had no
Foundation-A Somewhat Sem
sationa1 Case.

Several hours time of the Police Court
session was consumed yesterday afternoon
in hearing the case of Maud Silverstein,
against whom a charge of vagrancy had
been made. The case was of rather sem
sational character, and attracted large
attendance. The facts, briefly stated, are
about as follows, as brought out in Court;
The defendant was formerly resident of
this city, where she pursued the vocation
of courtesan, and was frequently charged
with thefts of money from her patrons.
About a year ago she was ordered to leave
the city, and did so. Some three or four
weeks since she returned and engaged
room on Second street, she says for one
week. On the night of her arrival officer
Agner visited her and asked if Chief of
Police Lee knew of her presence. She re-
piled that he did not, and the officer re-
quested her to call and see the Chief, which
she promised to do, but did not keep her
promise until the following day. When
she appeared at the station-house officer
Agner entered a charge against her of ZEN
ticing." She had an interview with Chief
Lee and he according to her testimony
requested her not to remain in the CITY;
that she bore pretty hard name, and
would be getting into trouble, and had bet
ter locate elsewhere. She says she had
right to remain if she desired, but IN defer
ence to the Chiefs wishes she at once gave
up her room and removed to Gait, where
she open ed saloon.
On Tuesday she came to the city, in re-
Spouse to telegram from her agent, John
Norton, to pay some bills for goods pur-
chased for her, amounting to some 5000.
She had paid her bills, and was on her way
to the depot to return to Gait on the s.
o'clock train, when she was accosted at
Second street by officer Franks. She paid
no attention to him, but kept on. (He saws,
however, that she made faces at him. He
followed and took hold of her and asked
her what she was doing in Sacramento, and
she replied that ii was none of his business
Franks then undertook to arrest her and
she resisted, demanding to know by what
right she was restrained of her liberty.
Officer Chambers came to Franks assist
ance, and the struggling, crying woman
was hustled along to the police-staIiou. She
declared III Court that Franks choked her,
called her vile names, and tore her cloth
ing nearly off ner, which the officer denied.
He admitted having placed his hand be-
hind her neck to shove her along, how
ever.
One witness, named Kaufman, said that
he heard Franks say to her: You ID
b-h, I'll strangle you if you don't walk ~
There was other testimony to the effect
that the woman was roughly treated, and
there was also evidence that the officers
were Obliged 10 use force.
lie defendant, on taking the stand, told
her story In most dramatic manner. She
is young woman of excellent address and
good talker. She displayed before the
Court humber of bills for wines, liquors,
cigars, groceries, etc., that she had come to
settle, and also receipted bill for house
rent at Gait, showing that she was a resi-
dent OF that place. She said she was
here attending 10 her business, and
boldly denied the right of officer
Franks or any one else to modest her. Be-
cause she was woman and had incurred
the lll-Wlll OF certain policemen here, she
could not see why they should be allowed
to assault and drag her through the streets
and then throw her into Jail without cause
She might not be model of purity, in
some respects, but she detied her enemies
TO point TO one criminal act of hers. She
had never been drunk in her life, and that
was more than her enemies could saw She
mad, moreover, never tasted a drop of
liquor unless prescribed by a DOCTOR She
minded her own business, paid her bills,
and claimed the right to walk the public
streets without being insulted, beaten, de-
nuded OF her clothing and made public
show of. During her remarks she ire
quently burst into tears, and the sympathy
OF nearly all present seemed to be with her.
ot1cer Franks testified that in his opin-
ION he was performing his duty in asking
her business IN the city, and when told it was
'annnp n a h,Yo; l.
he'd In arresting her. He denied having
used any more force than was necessary in
taking her to Jail. He had not seen her
Ior several weeks prior to Wednesday
perhaps Tor SIX or seven weeks; thought
she was drunk, but admitted he had never
known her TO drink. He wanted to find
out what her business was here, and ar
rested her 10 see what right she had TO in
suit him.
othcer Chambers, who assisted in the ar
rest, told similar story 10 that OF Franks,
ana he also admitted that he knew nothing
about the woman
Several other police officers were sworn,
Out none of them had any know ledge OF
the defendant that would warrant her con-
Vlcuon for vagrancy.
Charles 1. Jones, in his argument on be-
halt OF defendant administered scathing
reDuke TO the officer for what he (Jones)
called his brutal and unlawful treatment OF
the woman. The latter was no vagrant
out woman who had as much right to
walk the streets of this city as the officer,
and ne nor anyone else had any legal right
10 Interfere with her. Instead of she being
tried tor vagrancy, Franks, he said, should
be on trial for the malicious prosecution OF
Maud Silverstein because she had made
faces al him in response 10 his uncalled-foi
remarks and refused to answer his queries
Counsel claimed that the officer wa:
amenab!e to the law for crime that was
punishable by fine OF s. 600 and an ex-
tended term of imprisonment. Mr.. Jones
was exceedingly severe in his denunciation
OF the officers conduct. He concluded By
asking the discharge Of his client, as nc
case had been made out against her.
City Attorney Church virtually, although
not expressly, admitted that case of va,
grancy had not been proven, but criticised
the action of Mr.. Jones in dragging side
issue into his argument.
Judge Buckley briefly reviewed the facts
and decided that as the prisoner was in tbs
city for lawful purpose there was no occa
sion for her arrest. She was a resident o.
another community, conducting bushes:
that is licensed by law, and consequently
did not come within the provisions of the
yagrant Act. AS to the conduct OF The
officer, which had been so severely com,
mented on, he preferred not TO have any.
thing to say at the present time. But il
the defendant had told the officer the na
ture of her business in the city when frs
questioned there would probably have been
no arrest and no trouble.