Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-18
BEASLEY REFUSED ADM|TTANCE,
Some Legal Points About the
Reform School.
A Clash Raised Between the Justice
and Superior Courts.
Yesterdays Happenings in the Various
Tribunals-Action of the supreme
Court-Notes on Gases.
New Suits.

Ill bu6 COulb tOoey 49, A~ee-- -
the admission of boys to the state re-
form school, by an application from
Hugh J. Crawford, representing David
Beasley, for writ of mandate to COM
pel Superintendent Lindley to receive
him into the institution.
The boy was committed to the reform
school for two years, week ago, by
Judge Smith, of the superior court OF
Los Angeles, and DR.. Lindley refused to
recognize the order under certain pro-
visions of the law regulating the man
agement OF the school.
Since then the district attorney
has filed an information charg-
ing Beasley with burglary, proceed
ings in that direction having
been arrested by Judge Smith when
he committed him to the reform school.
The boy very naturally desires to go
to Whittier, and not to the penitentiary,
and the application will incidentally
involve construction of the sections
relative to the discretionary powers OF
the superintendent in denying admis-
sion after regular commitment by a
superior judge.
Beasley is boy 16 years old, without
parents or guardian, who was arrested
on charge of burglsrizing the railroad
station at Acton some time ago, together
with some companions He was exam
ined on the charge before magistrate,
and held to answer for trial before the
superior court. Since he has been lying
in Jail Humane Officer Wright got inter
esved in the case, and filed complaint
against the boy as an incorrigible. lie
was brought before Judge Smith, Mon
day, October 10th. and after examina'
tion was found guilty, the court sentenc-
ing him to two years at the reform
school. He was taken out to Whittier
the same day, but when refused admis-
sion was brought back again to the
county jail. Two days afterward Su-
perintendent Lindley addressed letter
to Judge Smith, explaining his reasons
for his action, as follows:
WHITTIER, Oct. u, 1892.
Hon. B. N. Smith, Superior Judge, Los Angeles,
Cal.
DEAR SIR II am satisfied from an ex-
animation of David Beasley, committed
here by your court October 10th. that
his case does not come within the inten-
ton OF section 20, of the act creating this
school.
He is accused of the serious crime of
burglary, and he bears marks OF GRIM
inal on his face, and the fact that he is
held on charge of burglary By the COM
mitting magistrate, shows that 1t was
never intended that he should be sent
here under section 20. He has been ar
raigned on the charge of burglary by the
proper committing magistrate, and as l
understand it that charge is still hang
ing over him. He has already given
trouble in the Jail, and has aroused the
serious suspicion OF those in charge OF
him there that he was dangerous and
unreliable.
Now, for me to take such young
man and place him with the boys OF this
school, in the comparatively unre-
strained grounds and in the school
room, will be dangerous to the whole
institution. 1 do not desire to do any
thing to influence your judgment OF what
is right, but believe the full statement
of facts has not been made you.
AS you are we'll aware, the law pro-
videe, in section 18, that it is for infants
between the ages of 6 and 16, who are
arraigned for trial on charge CT vio-
lation of criminal law, that proceed
ings may be arrested, and the accused
sent to the care and guardianship of this
school.
Consequently, l take advantage of the
provision of section 81, on account OF the
character OF the boy and also on account
of the overcrowded condition of our
school, and decline to receive him into
this institution.
Yours very respectfully,
WALTER LINDLEY,
Superintendent.
The boys visions of Whittier were
very rudely disturbed by this hat-footed
denial of DR.. Lindley. The section of
the law on which he based his denial
reads as follows:
Section 81. Before conveying infants
to said institution as provided under Sec
tion 20 of this act, the person or persons
having charge of said infants, shall as
certain from the superintendent wheth-
er they can be received, and II they can
not then the cases of such infants snail
be disposed of as if this act had never
been passed, and no proceedings taken
under it.
Judge Smith was evidently satisfied
with the explanation, for on Friday last
she interrupted proceedings under the
pending charge were resumed, an infor-
nation fled and the boy is to plead to
the charge Wednesday of this week.
But Mr.. Crawford has taken the posi-
ton that the refusal to receive Beasley
is wrong, upon the ground that sections
20 and 2l of the act under which u.
Lindley bases his refusal are only appll-
cable to cases where the complaint is by
a parent or guardian, and not applicable
in the present case. He will claim that
this is not a case in which the discre-
tionary power of the superintendent can
be exercised.
The application will state that Beas-
ley was committed September 10th to
the county Jail to answer before the su-
perior court on charge of burglary said
to have been committed by HIM at Ac-
ton; that October 10th he was examined
before Judge Smith, for incorrigibility
and sentenced to the reform school at
Whittier for two years; that he was
taken to the reform school by deputy
sheriff and Superintendent Lindley re-
fused to receive him, and was then
taken back to the county jail; that Oc-
tober l4th an information was filed
against him by the district attorney
charging him with the identical crime |
for which he was held to answer and |
com mitted to the reform school, and he |
has been ordered to plead to the charge |
October 10Th. 1t also states that he is
of the requisite age to entitle him to ad-
mission to the reform school, that he has !
no means with which to compensate his |
or to pay for filing the applica-
tion, and asks to be permitted to pro-
IN rn the same aH manner. and praVa |