San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1893-05-17
THE SUNDAY LAW.
DICK ToMMINs CASE GOES TO
TRIAL IN JUSTICE ADAMS
COURT.
The Court House Crowded-The
Testimony and Arguments of
the Lawyers and the Per-
sonal of the Jury.

The Sunday law violation cases
which were set for trial in Justice
Adams court attracted an i'm
mense crowd around the court
house and standing room was at
a premium, and the witnesses
juries and attorneys, found it diff
cult to enter or leave the court
room.
The first case placed on trial
was that of Dick Tommins. Sun
day lay committee man, Ed Haltom
appeared as the prosecutor, and
examined the members of the
venire summoned as jurors, al
though the county and district
attorneys We're present. The dis
trict attorney however,was merely
a spectator, it not being his pro-
Vince to prosecute in the Justices
court unless called on to do so.
Mr.. Haltom was very particular
not to fail to ask each jury man if
he was in favor of the Sunday law.
The council for the defense We're
Senator p. j. Lewis, Hon. William
Aubrey, eX-City Attorney S. G.
Newton, J. l.. Burgess and c. A.
Goeth. 1t took some time to select
the jury. One of the men sum-
moned on the venire, Eugene Diet
rich, when asked if he was in favor
of furnishing the defendant for viO-
iating the Sunday law, replied: 81
have lived here forty-seven years
and | never saw any one punished
for violating the Sunday law and
| don't see why Mr.. Tommins
should be punished any more than
any one else" He was not in favor
of enforcing the Sunday law and
was challenged by Mr.. Haltom for
cause.
The jurors selected were Albert
Peterson, Martin O'Day, J. :. Gray,
f. f. PEASANT, Macedonia Gortori
and Paul Hellmann. Messrs. Pc
terson, ODay and Gray are eX-city
policemen and Mr.. PEASANT was
formerly sanitary inspector.
Hellmann is a grocer and GOrtOri
q farmer.
The first witness was deputy
Constable PObOkOwski, who said
he saw TOmmin's place open last
Sunday, but he did not see Tom
min there. He saw people going
in and out. He did not know what
the purpose in doing so of the peo-
pie went in and out was. He
didn't know whether they went
there to Sunday school or to drink.
Mr.. JOhh KisSling, 9TH ward
grocer, who was the next witness,
said he did not know the defend
ant. The latter's saloon was open
last Sunday for business. He went
for a drink and got it from bar
tender. He went in with man
named Frank Daniels. The defen-
dent was not there. The next wit
ness was Officer Evans, of the city
police, who testified the defendant
was a liquor dealer doing business
on the witnesses beat. The defen-
dant's place of business was
closed at I :45 Sunday afternoon
when the witness passed there.
He did not see it opened. The de-
fendant's counsel admitted that he
was liquor dealer. c. c. Harris,
inspector of weights, testified he
was in defendants place of bust
ness once last Sunday, and that it
was open. He said the barkeeper
was sitting down in one corner,
and the porter in another corner.
He said no one took any drinks
there. He saw some men going in
and out. He saw the defendant
there early in the morning.
The county attorney was willing
to submit the case without argu-
ment and so were the de-
PENDANTS counsel, but Lawyer
Haltom wanted to talk some.
The county attorney wanted to
read the statute and said he didn't
want to make sky scraping ar
gument and only hit the ground
in high places. He didn't want to
hit the ground at all. He then
read the Sunday law. He then
commented on the testimony and
concluded by saying the chickens
would come home to roost if the
committee of twenty-five was
dOwned.
The defendant introduced no
testimony. Mr.. Newton who spoke
first for the defence, said he was
annoyed at the admission of the
county attorney, that this was a