Los Angeles herald., 1891-02-03
AMONG THE COURTS.
THE LEGALITY OF THE EDELMAN
INDICTMENT QUESTIONED.
An Important Ruling in the Case of Bell
VS.. Owens-The Damron Examination.
New Suits.

one of the superior court to set aside the
indictment for the following reasons
First--On the ground that the indict-
ment is not found, indorsed or presented
as prescribed in the penal code.
Second-Because the names of the
witnesses examined before the grand
jury are not inserted at the foot of the
indictment or indorsed thereon.
Third Because persons were permit
ted to be present during the session of
the grand jury, and when the charge
embraced in the indictment was under
consideration, other than the persons
provided for in section 925 OF the penal
code.
The court summoned the grand jurors
to appear in department one for exa'n-
ination on February 9th.
DXMRoN IN COURT.
"Jimv Damron, the noted penman,
appeared yesterday in Justice Anstin's
court as defendant in a charge OF forgery
and as counsel for the defendant. He
naturally demurred to the several COM
plants against himself, which Justice
Austin Just as naturally overruled.
Then'as attorney for himself, this local
Pooh Bah moved that his case be post
poned, as, he wished to secure additional
counsel in the matter, but after consult
ing with the district attorney, it was
agreed that the case, based on the Duns-
moor note, be taken up at once, and the
other cases should go over.
j. S. Chadwick was called to the
stand, and was cross-examined by the
Hon. Jim, who attempted to mix his
Quondam friend up in what he tried to
make trying cross-examination, but
Chadwick, while very cautious and
somewhat nervous, preserved his
equanimity, and stood the ordeal fairly
we'll.
Chadwick's testimony, which was very
brief, was to the effect that shortly after
the expose of Damron's first forgery, he
spoke to the ex-assemblyman about the
Mrs. Hunter notes, and told him that if
they were not all right he had better
raise the money and get them out of the
bank. Damron then told him that they
were not all right, and as he did not
know where to raise the necessary funds,
his friend Chadwick advanced the money
for him.
Walter Lindley and A. H. Dunlap tes-
titled briefly that the signatures attached
to the note were forgeries. Mrs. Emma
Hunter testified that when she spoke to
Damron about the notes he told her that
Chadwick knew nothing of the matter.
The defendant, offering no defense,
was held to answer on this testimony,
under bonds in the sum of $25OO.
At 2 O'Clock the second of the Hunter
note cases was taken up, the defendant
filing the same demurrer and making
similar motions as in the previous case,
ali of which met with the same ruling.
Chadwicks Testimony was to the same
effect as before, and S. III. Perry and g.
HI. Dunsmoor having testified to the for
gerry of their sAiGnatures, Damron was
again held to answer under bonds in the
sum Of $250O.
When the third case came up for
hearing, at 3 O'Clock, the defendant an
nOunced that he had good defense, land
by consent the examination was con-
tinued until 8 o'clock on Friday morn
ing.
BELL VS.. OWENS.
In the case of Bell vs. Owens, Judge
Clark yesterday handed down the
following ruling:
This is an alternative writ of prohibi-
ton. The principal question involved,
and to determine which this suit was
brought, i. e., sis there police court in
the city of Los Angeles, and has respond
ent jurisdiction as a justice thereof"
cannot be determined on the pleadings
in the case as they at present exist. The
constitution, which provides that the
legislature shall determine the number
of justices of the peace to be elected in
townships and incorporated cities, etc.,
and fix the limits Of their jurisdiction,
the legislature declared that in every
city having 20 600 and not more than
100, 900 Inhabitants, there should be two
justices Of the peace elected, and by an
act generally known as the "Whitney
act' provided that the judicial power of
every city having 10000 and under 100,-
GOO inhabitants should be vested in a
police court to be held by the city JUS
tices, and prescribes the limits Of its
jurisdiction.
II is upon these two enactments that
respondent rests. The petition upon
which the writ issued alleges that the
petitioner was arrested upon warrant
issued out Of the police court upon. a
complaint sworn to before respondent,
M. T. Owens, as q police judge; that said
M. T. Owens claims and pretends that
he has been elected and has qualified
as one of the two justices of the peace in
and for said city of Los Angeles, and
that, as said city justice of the peace, he
is entitled to hold q police court in said
city, by virtue of said act of March 49,,
1885, and that unless restrained he will
proceed to try said petitioner upon the
charge in said complaint contained. The
petition then alleges that the city of Los
Angeles is not, and has not been at any
time mentioned in the petition, city
OF 20. 600 inhabitants. II these allega-
tions be true, they would Of course be
conclusive in favor Of petitioner; for if
the city has less than 20 900 inhabitants
there can be but one justice under the
provisions of said section 103 G, G. r.,
and if less than 10000, the city justices
would have NO power to organize and act.
ae police court under said act Of March
IS, 1885; and respondent fling no an
swer denying these allegations, but only
ageneral demurrer, admits them to be
true. Petitioners position is that the
population of the city is to be determ-
ined by the United States census only I;
that the census Of 1890 was not officially
promulgated at the time respondent
assumed to act as city justice of the
+ ~