Los Angeles herald., 1890-12-25
SUNDAY COCKTAILS.
THE LEGALITY OF THEIR SALE
LEGALLY INVESTIGATED
The Defendants Represented by Large
Array of Talent-The Demurrer and Its
Points-The Case Under Amusement.

Yesterday morning an array of legal
talent such as is seldom seen at the bar
OF police court, assembled in Judge
Ovens court room to argue on the de-
murrers filed in the cases recently
brought against number Of saloon men
for violating the new Sunday closing
ordinance. The city was represented by
Deputy City Attorney AL. Crutcher,
while the defendants were respectively
represented by Messrs G. C. Stephens,
Wells, Guthrie & Lee, John Robarts,
Carpenter and Millins.
The grounds upon which the demur-
rers were entered are exactly the same
in each case, and read as follows:
First-That the court has no jurisdic-
tion over the persons of the defendants
Second-That the court has no juris.
diction over the subject matter of the
offense.
Third-That the complaint is ambigu
GUS and uncertain, for the reason that
it does not state that the alleged ofense
was committed in violation OF any par
tcular ordinance, giving number and
date of its passage and the provisions
thereof.
Fourth-That the complaint is uncer-
tain, for the reason that it does not set
forth whether or not the ordinance,
the provisions of which it is alleged
were violated, was ever published in
q newspaper in the city of Los Angeles,
or was ever posted the necessary time
required by the statutes in order to
make it binding and effective ordi-
nance.
Fifth-That the complaint is ambigu
Gus and uncertain, for the reason that
it does not state the provisions OF the
alleged ordinance, or that any such ordi-
nance was duly passed by the city coun-
Gil or approved by the mayor in accord
ance with the provisions OF the charter,
or that the same ever became law or
is valid ordinance of the city.
Sixth-That if there ever was such
an ordinance, that it is unreasonable
and contrary to the constitution of the
United States and the constitution OF the
state of California.
Seventh-That the city of Los Angeles
never had the power to pass any such
ordinance as is alleged and attempted to
be set up in the complaint.
Eighth-That there is no such court
any statute as 'the police court of the
city OF Los Angeles"
The argument of the defending coun-
sci in support OF the demurrer was to
the effect that the council, in passing
such an ordinance, had exceeded its
powers, in that it had no power to pro-
hibit the sale of intoxicants, but was
vested with authority to regulate such
sale only. That such an ordinance was
unjust. unfair and oppressive, and that
the term public drinking place" was
indefinite.
The validity OF the police court was
questioned, counsel citing the cases OF
ex parte Toal and ex parte Riley, and
the authority of the court under the
Whitney act of 1885, which provided for
police courts in cities having between
80, 900 and 100000 inhabitants. That
the official census of 1890 had not been
promulgated, and that the court could
not take judicial knowledge of the fact
that the city has population of 8 1000
After hearing both sides OF the ques-
ton, Judge Owens took the matter un.
der adyisement until Tuesday next,