Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-16

Damron, ex-district attorney; also the |
III Hammond, ex-tax collector, defalca- |
ion of 81, 800. The charges in each case
we're OF the most serious nature, and
involved large sums Of money. Have
any OF them been punished? No, not
Dnel OF the cases against Montailo, the
hrst was dismissed by the district attor-
ney, the second was quabhed because
not properly brought, and in the third
the district attorney was beaten by the
superior generalship OF opposing coun-
sci. The four cases against Lauterio
were all dismissed Oh motion OF the dis
tllct attorney. In the 45 cases against
Edelman, the jury disagreed in three OF
tnem, and all the rest were nolle pressed
by the district attorney. In the Dam
ron cases Mr.. Kelly was whipped by the
attorney on the other side in one case,
and McLachlan wac whipped in the next
one so badly that he hastened to dismiss
the other four.
CRIMINAL CASES.
Will Mr.. McLachlan undertake to tell
the people of this county that these men
were not guilty? During his term OF
office to date Mr.. McLachlan and his
ten assistants have had the manage
ment of 276 criminal cases, being less
than thirteen CAGES per month, and less
than two cases per deputy per month.
OF these he has dismissed sixty-one, or
nearly one-fourth. He was defeated in
thirty-six of them, and won eighty-two.
These victories include all cases tried,
big and little, and those which came up
from the justices courts. In forty-nine
cases he accepted pleas OF guilty of Of
fenses lower than the one charged, and
there are now twenty-five cases pending
and undisposed of. Out of nine cases in
the supreme court he has been reversed
in four, and the other five are still unde-
termined. Bail has been forfeited
in four cases, but in one of them
(Ah Tets case) the bail appears to
have been discharged by blunder ol
the district attorney. The error con-
sisted in remanding the defendent tc
Jail while he was out ON bail. He has
sent seven offenders to the reform school
the jury has disagreed in two Other
cases, which he thereupon dismissed
and in one other disagreement the de-
fendant was held to the next grant
jury. Now add to the cost of runnin,
the district attorneys Office the cost o
i the criminal department of the superio
court, and the sheriff's. Justices ant
constable's costs in each OF these cases
and you will begin to get some faint ide'
OF what it costs to prosecute 276crimina
cases and secure SO verdicts under tn
administration of the best governmen
which the world ever saw in Los Angelo
county.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TAXES.
But, this is not all /; the distric attor
ney has been transacting some civi
business, also. Among the many othe
great things he was going to do whel
he got to be district attorney, he wa
going to make the Southern Pacih
company pay its taxes. 1t had Ions
been notorious fact that, although
this railroad company owned vast tract
of valuable land in this county, which
it had acquired by congressiona
grants, and to which it has as good
fee simple title as you have to your or
chards and gardens. yet the assessor is al
ways obligiDg enough to overlook then
and you have to make up the deficienc.
out of improved lands, which the asses
sor never fails to fine you for improving
1t was also q notorious fact that thi
company failed and refused to pay tn
tax assessed upon it's personal pfopert
for the year 1887, amounting to owe
$20, 1000. A friendly board of supervisor
has winked at this contempt, ard n
suit was ever ordered. until after th
claim had become barred by the statut
OF limitations. The bar took effect Will
my good friend, Mack, was trying hi
hardest to beat my friend Munday, j
the campaign of 1890. Munday's hant
some countenance would have won tn
race sure, if he had only promised, 9
Mack did, to sue the Southern Pacif
company for these taxes. But Munda
was too good a lawyer and not sufficien
ly addicted to buncomb to make an
such rash promises. He knew tn
claim was outlawed, and it would be
reflection ON the legal ability of my alb
opponent if I did not presum, that
also knew it, The action, No. IA, 49,
was begun on January 81, 1891, and di
missed. Next day he began agail
action No. 14,517, and on the 24tl
action No. IA 532. The railroad compar
interposed demurrer, setting mp tt
statute of limitations as bar to tt
suit. The district attorneys Office W,
so badly frightened by that demurr'
that it was nearly year and half b
fore another paper was filed in the cas-
Then came Judge Wade's written opil
ions on the question raised by the
murrer, filed June 6, 1892. His reaso
ing is clear and conclusive that IL
claim is barred. On page 12 he says: |:
"The difficulties are somewhat il
, creased by the character of the cor
plants, as they do not appear to ha'
been drawn in conformity to ar
statute by which actions for taxes a
directly authorized" To avoid the bl
COUNSEL strenuously urged that the ts
sued for was judgment which can on
be barred in five years. But the learnt
judge in his opinion clearly shows th
it is only IAN action upon judgmel
or decree of court" which must
prosecuted in five years. He final
concludes his elaborate opinion by sa,
J ing: "As the only authority deeme
strictly applicable to the pleadings
this CAGE comedies the possibility
maintaining suit for tax, as an a
tion on a judgment, the plaintiff ms
have the benefit of this possibility, ar
the demurrer is overruled." The raj
road company answered, setting up agai
the statute of limitations. The distri
attorney filed general demurrer
this, and there the case has been q
lowed to slumber ever since. You ms
rest assured it's slumbers will not /
disturbed during this campaign.
From the autobiography of the distri
attorney, contained in political Stati
tician," by Palm & Back, page AZ,
quote: "In the celebrated railroad ia
cases Mr.. McLachlan has been in II
| 1ood nf tho diet ~ AZ Of tOrn ou of tho ST. +