The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-08-07
III WAS MOB Law.
Powers Takes No Stock in the
Preachers Meeting.
Keslsr Has Another Attack OF Softening Of
the Heart and Turns Kelly
& Reilly Free.

LII. LII Will De surprised TO learn Ludb
when citizens hold mass meeting for the
purpose Of Strengthening the hands of
the Mayor they resort to mob law. AT
least o. w. Powers said yesterday that he
took no stock in public meetings held to
unduly influence the courts; that it was
mob law, and it was supposed he meant
the preachers meeting.n 1t was when
he was making a speech defending Kelly
and Reilly, who were charged with violat
ing the Sunday ordinance.
Mr.. Coad opened the argument for the
prosecution by reviewing the case, and
said it didn't matter who sold liquor if the
place was open for business, and IL was
certain that the men seen going in the side
door were not visiting MIR. Kelly's resi-
dence, for they stated they had seen him
on the street. He referred TO the wit
nesses, and said there was no testimony to
show they were spoilers.
y. w. Powers said that. first OF all, the
defendants were to be presumed TO be in
nocent until they were proven guilty.
Every reasonable doubt" he said, must
be removed from the judicial mind he
then quoted the law bearing on the offense,
and said II must be proven the defendants
themselves sold beer, or that it was sold
under their immediate SUPERVISION or with
their knowledge. A saloon may keep wide
open on Sunday, and the public 90 in and
out, but if nothing is sold no crime has
been committed.
He said the man Cravens testified he had
gone into the saloon with Decker, and the
latter said he had not been in tho saloon on
that day. This testimony Offset that of
Cravens. The witnesses got mixed; they
must have been there at some earlier date.
Chris johnson said he went in with Rock,
but didn't know who sold him peer. Mr..
Rock says he went IN two weeks ago last
Sunday, which was not on the 24th of the
month, as charged in the complaint. This
contradicts Johnson, and therefore dis
poses of his testimony; Rock was rig ut;
johnson was wrong. The police officers
saw men going into Kelly's residence door,
but there was no testimony to show these
men drank while there, and the officers
testimony should have no weight Mr..
Hellberg didn't see Kelly when he was IN
the saloon; there was nothing to connect
Kelly with the selling as both he and Kelly
were on the street; the barkeeper who
sold beer to Hellberg was a little dark man
who had never been identified. Lundgreen
didn't know the barkeeper who waited on
him, and said it was neither Ike ly or
Reilly; he had seen Reilly on the street.
Neither OF these witnesses connected Kelly
or Reilly with the selling. The witnesses
were all mistaken as TO the date: they
were probably there before at an earlier
date. Under the law these defendants
must be connected with the selling: if their
bRrkeeper opened up without their kDowl-
EDGE they could not be held responsible.
The witness Lumpkin was allowed by the
chief Of police te work the police depart
ment, which was shown when he testified
TO being IN a So Don on Sunday. Add TO all
this the denial of the defendants and the
case is perfect. He didn't care what the
pubic thought; what was said on the
streets should not influence the courts. He
took no stock in public meetings held to
unduly influence the courts; that was mob
law
MIR. Coad pointed out where Powers had
been mistaken in his view of the law
quoted, and also stated Cravens did not
say Decker went into the saloon with him.
Coming down to the gist of the question, it
was whether or not the saloon had been
open and men allowed TO 20 in and out. All
the witnesses couldn't be mistaken as to
the date, and it was absurd TO claim any
such thing.
The court said the defendants were
charged with violation of the law in sell
ing on Sunday. As to proof, the prosecu-
tion had introduced several witnesses and
the court had listene attentively to them.
Craven said he got liquor on the oath by
going in an alley through a hole in the
fence. and claimed a man by the name OF
Decker was with him. Decker said he was
not there on that day.
lCravens in his testimony never claimed
Decker went in the saloon with him.
CHS johnson claimed to have bought
liquor while in company with Mr.. Rock
but the latter said it was two weeks ago.
Hellberg, Lundgreen and Enbeck were
there together. The testimony of the three
&c 1-sat5~ rr 7ot1 10 tbr
court believed they were all sincere in
their testimony. 1t SINNERS down as to
whether these men got liquor there. The
court intends 10 see the Sunday ordinance
enforced If possible. The court holds these
men didn't sell any liquor on that date.
MIR. Coad called the courts attention to
the fact that they were on trial for keep
ing their place open on Sunday for doing
business.
The court held that any saloon or other
business place could keep their doors wide
open on Sunday. but in order to secure con-
viction testimony must be produced 20
show sale.
Only a short time ago Judge Kesler fined
Louis Hobeln SIS for keeping open on sun
day. when there was no testimony intro
duced as TO any sale, except one witness
testifying TO the purchase of q scent cigar.
OTHER POLICE PENcILTNGs.
Chris SEMINOLE and Chris Kuhn, who
were charged with interfering with an Of
ticer when he attempted to arrest Joseph
Slemert, the foreman of the Salt Lake
brewery, were fined $50 and SO respect
lively. Nick Pelter is another man wanted
on the same charge. Jacob Moritz prom
ised TO produce him in court when wanted,
but did not do SO. Chief Paul says he will
have him in short time.
Thomas Kelly, charged with being drunk
and a vagrant, said he was not feeling well
and had taken little ginger and whisky,
and the Judge let him go. He had only one
leg and one hand, and is 8 dealer in lead
pencils.
Anthony Austin, the young man shot
last Saturday by his father, William
Austin, refuses to prosecute. Assistant
County Attorney Eichnor is on the lookout
for a prosecpting witness, and will prob
ably find one in time to arraign Austin by