Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-08-26
an ASTOUNDING VERDICT.
A MAN ADMITS VIOLATING AN 0RDI-
NANCE, BUT is ACQUITTED.
Why j. ID. Smith Was Refused a License
to Conduct q saloon-A Jurors
Explanation.

On the first day of the present month
the license of ]. D. Smith TO conduct a
saloon on K street expired, and when
Smith went to the License Office to have
his license renewed it was denied him,
Collector Putnam explaining that Mayor
Comstock had given orders TO that effect
for the reason that Smith had been con-
Quoting disorderly house-a deadfall.
Smith, however. continued to dispense
liquor from his bar without license, and
in violation of the municipal law.
A warrant was sworn to by police officer
Gibson and Smith arrested for violating
Ordinance No. 262. which reads as follows:
Every person who commences or carries on
any business trade, profession or calling for
the transaction or carrying on of which a
license is required by any ordinance of this
city without taking out or procuring the Incense
prescribed by such ordinance, is gui ~ of a mis-
ished by fine not exceeding $780, or by i'm
prisonment not exceeding six months or by
both such fine and imprisonment.
Ordinance No 263 goes further than 262
by defining what persons and what char
acter of houses or saloons may be licensed
by the Trustees The applicant for a
license must present q petition to the
Trustees, and the same shall be accompan-
led by, and contain the names and sigma
lures of majority of the citizens residing
in the city block or square in which said
saloon is proposed to be opened or con-
Quoted. Also, that the petitioner, if
granted q license, must bind himself to
keep it in an orderly and decent manner. A
written complaint may be filed with the
Board of Trustees and signed by six or
more citizens, setting forth that any bar
room, public saloon, dance house, theater,
variety show or any other place of amuse-
ment in existence and maintained within
the city limits at the time of the passage of
this ordinance, is conducted in an unlaw-
full, indecent, disorderly or disreputable
manner, and the Trustees after investigat-
ing the case, must act according to the evil
dence they shall have obtained.
1t was not under this latter ordinance,
however, that Smith was arrested, City At
torney Hart deeming No. 262 fully sufficient
to warrant conviction.
Smiths trial came up in the Police Court
yesterday forenoon, and the defendant de-
manded Jury trial. Most of the morning
session was consumed in impaneling a
jury. the following-named being finally ac-
cepted: E. Fabian, Samuel Poska, A.
Schaden, P. Vanzetti, John Reeves, s.
Kohne, John Klotz, Sam Ginsberg, G.
Voegel, S. Morris, II. Winters and James
Parsons.
The prosecution, represented by City At
torney Hart, showed, by the testimony OF
Collector Putnam, that Smith had no IL
cense to carry on a saloon business since
the LIST of this month, and by officer Glib
son that Smith had, in defiance of the Or
dinance, carried on such business since the
LIST of this month.
City Attorney Hart, by way of informa-
ton to the jury, read Section 263, in addi-
ton to No. 262, but the defense objected,
and 263 was ruled out by the Court.
The defense, which was represented by
Hiram johnson and George 6. Davis, MAIN
tanned that the defendant had been dis
eliminated against; that he had not
wantonly violated the ordinance; that it
had been the custom, where parties were
considered good not to require licenses
to be paid before the Collector visited the
place on his regular tour, and that Mr..
Smith had reason to believe he could con-
tinue the sale of liquor until such visit
was made.
Smith, on taking the witness stand, ad-
mitted that he at present had no license.
Therefore, Mr.. Hart, in presenting the
case to the jury for the prosecution, held
that the jury had but one matter to con-
slider and that was whether or not Smith had
violated Ordinance 262. That ordinance
declares that any person who shall conduct
saloon without license is guilty of a
misdemeanor-and Smith had admitted
that he had no license.
The case was submitted, and when an
nour or so later the jury returned verdict
of mot guilty" Judge Buckley and City
Attorney Hart were perelyzed with aston
ishment.
After the jury had been discharged
the Judge said he did not understand how
such "a verdict could have been reached.
The case was as plain as could be. Had
the case been left to him be said he would
have rendered a verdict of guilty. City At
torney Hart also expressed himself as
greatly surprised at the verdict. He did
not understand how it was possible, in the
face of the ordinance and Smiths admis-
sions, to find the defendant not guilty. He
concluded, however that the jury had mis-
construed the ordinance or else believed
that Smith had been Disseminated against,
and had acquitted him for sentimental
reasons.
A RECORD UNION reporter interviewed
one of the Jurors last evening in reference
to the verdict Said he: I'VE acquitted
Smith on technicality. We believed him
guilty, and would have rendered such a
verdict were it not for the fact that the
City Attorney had made a mistake in draw
ing up the complaint, by setting forth that
Smith violated Ordinance 262 instead of
263 As we understood it, 262 merely tells
how person must proceed in order to
start a saloon, while Ordinance 263 pro-
vides how man shall be closed out who
does not conduct an orderly house. We
also discussed the right of the Mayor indi-
vidually to order license revoked. The
verdict of scquittal was rendered on the
technicality. Had Smith been arrested for
violating 263, we would have convicted him
promptly"
City Attorney Hart said last night that
be would issue another complaint against
Smith, charging him with violating No.
263. 1T is not whit stronger than 262, F"
he said. "but I'm just going to see what the
next jury will do. Jures are as uncertain
as the weather"
SCHOOL MATTERS.