Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-01-19
SAYS Ii WASFRAUD
George Thompson Questions
the City Extension Act.
BECAUSE or ALLEGED IuGGLE
In ths Passage Of a Substitutes By the
Last Ls.Islztaf=-desser1ay's Ns~s
% the Courts.

George Thompson. attorney for
Charles P. Dlckerman. who Is charged
with Keeping MS saloon open on Sun
day on two different OCCASIONS, argued
motion IA the superior court yester-
day for dismissal OF the case on the
ground that the o.iensrs. II committed
~ all, were not committed within the
corporate limits of the city OF Grand
Rap.ds and hence could not be tried In
. municipal court DlckermAn runs
road house on the gravel road which
leads TO the Soldiers home. His place
Is within the one-fourtn mile strip on
the north side OF the city, over which
30 much discussion has arisen. Mr..
Thompson cited the act of the squaw-
bucks, extending the city limits and
said the amendment TO the charter
which took in the one-fourth mile strip
Was not introduced within lie nfty day
limit.
He slammed . bill WAS passed extend
ing the city limits a. far north as TIE
south boundary of the one-fourtn mile
strip IN question, within the nfty-dsy
L
tension OF the city limits supposed that
action settled the matter and came
home. Afterwards, after the limit had
expired. An amendment WAS introduced
20 taxe IN the ons-fourIh mile strip OF
territory. The amendment. Was so en-
titled as TO mislead the uninitiated.
The tltle referred TO amendments of
the charter which had nothing 10 do
with extending the city limits Later
substitute was brought IN for this
amendment and WAS 80 worded as TO
extend the city limits one-fourth of
mile. The title OF the substitute was
not amended TO conform to the matter
IN the substitute. II passed the house.
but oy some trlckery the bill appeared
IA the senate with an amended title.
Question of Titles.
IL was passed by the senate but when
the bill came back TO the house II ap-
peared with its old time title. Mr..
Thompson held that an act passed by
such jugglery should not and coulc not
stand before any court. This question
Was taken TO the supreme court once
but the attorney neglected TO have the
original bill for the extension OF the
city limits cited IN the case. As the or
iginal bill did rot appear before the
supreme court, II could not DC de
termIned whether the substitute to the
bill was german subject matter of the
original bill. Mr.. Thompson was care
ful to have the bill and the substitute
and the history of the whole handling
of the bill IN the leg Islature introduced
In the case. as he will take 10 10 the SUI
preme court.
City Attorney Taylor hearing of the
fight that was being made and realizing
how seriously the question affected the
city, came IN and aided IN looking up
the record of the bill IN the state leg
islature. He denied thstth substitute
had It's title amended IN the senate.
lie sad the title wss amended n the
house and was concurred IN before it
went TO the senate.
Reported as Amended
Prosecuting Attorney W0lcott took
MP the defense of the bill ana the sub
-tltuts. tie traced the action of the
leg stature IN their passage. Tie showed
that while the secretary of the senate,
when be reported the substitute back
TO the house, referred 20 u under 10.
Original utls. IN the body OF the secre-
tary's message, he tells what the SEN
ate had done with the bill and refers 10
II under It's amended title. The motion
vas Oyerruled. and tie court remarked
that he had 40 doubt as 10 the validity
OF the act. A jury WAS struck and the
case was tried, resulting IN an acquit-
Ia There = another case against
IICkermsn, which Will be tried today.