Telegram-herald., 1890-08-20
POLICE AND COURT.


Tie case Of the Cis vs. oslerloRt
e2las up ia the afternoon Wle Ar
CAFroH Tor tie eiiy ana Ag. tgeseslon
for tlle defendant. Tie oase i ol ntsva
more importance than the htt qi any
single dos. Ii vii he Remembered shat
o'sleraouts dog Z sliogea e. haRs h.sien
tae xouuc daughter 81 Oaelr Anch.
The father produced iaom sae oe.si an
order loI tie klli0g 81 t4e doe .iadeF
the ordinance. The animal noi having
been kllled wiihln the required lmty-
eight hours. Nh l'slei boat Vas arrested
ana oFought into eouFl ioI punishment.
By hls attorneys, hsglestoa a AolElde.
lie askea - have the ease dismissed GA
the ground that the court bad nai Tie
authority to make TIE order a. kili Tie
respondents dog There we're tuo
reasons gwen tor TOE position t8kta,
nrst, because iuaslnuch - asas ars re-
cogaiaed 81 be psNperiy, the defendant
Aa4 lle right 81 Hlakt answer and d.
Tease before the killing 81 acdoe soula
he executed oeooAa. bag1ase tAo
charter cauiels go power ga iae cuan-
"a - nl46s ihis Iisaancc IA Eeeles-
ton cited ila au III the charter
~Aich colicrs i.l. power Ga Gao council
20 regulate ana prevent ias cumming al
large ~ dogs, ala argued that Is does
ne. carry vita lhe pow,l IA klA.
Ia reply, ar. tafToil SAID ~ take d
taai fhis question: stands u ths couu
she same as other questions oI constata-
tonallX.'
4Ae court. iuierfupiing, said De aid
not understand tlat aus questions 81
consiiiulona.-ty had beel raised .sy Ar.
Egg.estan.
Very upe," replied Ar. Carrots
"oul u e taaiainoant 60 that. lac tle
saiAe question oi leg slaDvo authority,
whether 4 lac the authority 90 d CIV
legislature acting under charter. or ~
state Leg stature acting unaer q ca,s-
sHtalon. TIE point II that u ueffler
case ought a court oi Kary limited snr-
ls4iluon 10 undertake O. determine tie
matter. when sucn court cannot settle
tile matter, Il thc very nature 81 the
case. M Carroll very freely Admitted
tie grave doubt whether toe council
bad the authority which 8lr Ecgostun
denied. Bat d wac not ior the police
court 10 determine that point no
thought that settlement ol toe question
would nol settle. "for. said Sc. s.u
ihe event 81 your honor making GER
tam decision TO-DAY and then beng
taken SICK. tie assistant Judge might
MAKE \ directly contrary decls.on iO-
morrow" The inference was that the
decisions Of a police court Judge did not
afford sufficiently authoritative pre-
cedents for future decisions Ou ike
points. and for TINS reason Mr.. Carroll
urged that the case be decided against
the one only party % the litigation who
had the right 81 appeal.
On the other hand. Mr.. Eggiest0n
thought that his client ought not 10 Dee
pat 70 the expense OF taking toe case 90
the Superior courts for the purpose Of
making law for the whole country. II
II We're PLAIN case against his client lac
would not resist strongly any luog-
ment, but. under the circumstance,
when the prosecutor himself seemed
doubtful. be thought the case should
be dismissed.
The opinion Of the police court on
the general question raised by Mr. Car
roll IS well known, bat there was no re-
affirmation Of that opinion Yesterday
II was broadly laid down 10 toe case Of
the City VS.. Peter \. Saim. bat ycstcr-
day the court declined on other
ground 10 ismiss the case Has Honor
thought that the power OF regulation"
was very broad, even TO the exten. If
permission 20 order the killing. Hence
he held the ordinance valid. 80 fho
trial went on. Mrs. Lynch and the li-
tie daughter Mamie testified that Oster-
houts hull dog had bitten Name, and
Others testified, on the other SIDE, a. 10
the good character Of the dog. and the
want OF a sufficient showing ol wounds
10 make the biting appear cOnci 1s.ve
the next day. The court Wrought that
the case against the dog had not been
maintained, and TINS, Of course lct the
man out. Mr.. Ostorhout was de
charged.