The record-union., 1895-04-13
JUDGE CATLIN AS A KNOCKER- OUT.
Three Cases Disposed of in a Single
Round Each.
The City Trustees Not Success in
Framing Ordinances Involving
constitutional Questions.

Superior Judge Catlin did not have on
his gloves yesterday, but with bare
knuckles laid out three appealed cases as
dettly as John L. Sullivan disposed OF his
| subjects in his palmy days.
Judge Catlin's decisions in the cases of
A. d. Miller against the County of Sacra-
mento. and the appeals from the decision
Of City Justice Davis in the cases of
Wong Wing, E. E. David and Japanese
woman named Miss Shikado were rem
dered.
The case of Miller against the county
was for the recovery of S94 20 alleged to
have been illegally collected as an assess
ment for school purposes in Enterprise
School District, Miller claimed that the
election called by the trustees of the dis
trict for the purpose of voting on the
question of raising his taxes for special
school purposes in the district was not
| legally called, for the reasons that the
trustees OF the district advertised the call
for the election but once a week for two
weeks In a newspaper in the county,
whereas they should have advertised it
once q week for three weeks; that the tax
was void, because the election called for
the purpose OF raising the tax, and the
founded was called for the purpose of
voting tax to build schoolhouse in the
district and for no other school pur-
pose, and that the maximum rate Of the
tax exceeded 20 cents on each 500 of the
taxable property in the district,
Judge Catlin's decision is in favor of
Miller, the plaintiff. He finds that the
call for the election should have been
advertised for three full weeks. ''This
/ failure in the publication alone is fatal"
says the court, land renders the tax null
and void.
''The excess IN the rate of the tax is
also OF Itself alone sufficient to invalidate
the tax, even If the publication of the no.
tice had been sufficient"
ONE COMPLAINT TOO MANY.
Wong Wing was accused in the Police
! Court of conducting a tan game. His at
! torney, W. A. Anderson, demurred to
the complaint on the ground that it did
not conform to the requirements of the
! Penal Code.
! The City Attorney filed a new COM
| plant, upon which the defendant was
found guilty and sentenced to pay fine
! of SlO0 Or serve 100 days in the County
| JAIL a motion for a new trial was made
on the ground of errors of the court in
decisions on questions Of law occurring
| during the trial, and that the verdict was
! against the law and contrary to the evil
dence. The motion for a new trial was
| denied and an appeal was taken to the
| Superior Court.
! After the new complaint was fled the
| attorney for the defendant asked what
was TO become of the first complaint and
| wanted to know if the new complaint
! charged the same offense The City At
! torney refused TO dismiss the first COM
| pIalnt and said that as rule of law when
! two complaints are on file the last one
! takes precedence.
! The defendants attorney contended
/ that his client had been acquitted of the
! of1ense by the abandonment of the first
complaint, and objected to further pro-
! ceedlngs IN the case upon the ground that
! the defendant as placed upon trial for
two complains for the same offense
/ The Judgment Of the Police Court is
| reversed on the showing made in the
! defendants statement on appeal.
! WAS ENTITLED TO a JURY.
! L. &. David was convicted in the Police
! Court OF having violated the anti-parade
! ordinance and was sentenced to pay
/ fine OF s. or serve five days IN JAIL He
/ was denied trial by jury, and on this
ground, together with the contention that
/ the ordinance was unconstitutional, he
! appealed the case to the Superior Court.
| Judge Catlin in his decision says that
| for the denial by jury alone the judg-
ment should be reversed. That a de-
| tendant SO charged" says the Judge,
| 'who pleads not guilty and does not
| waive jury trial, must be tried by a
| jury, is authoritatiFely settled by the not
very late case of Taylor VS.. Reynolds, 90
! Cal. 593.
UNCoNSTITUTIONAL ANYHOW.
! Referring to the constitutionaIity of the
ordinance under which David was con-
victed, Judge Catlin says 1t is clear the
/ ordinance embraces at least two separate
and distinct subjects, and that it Is quite
! certain that two subjects are not only in
| dicated but plainly stated in the title. He
| then refers to the tirst and second sections
! of the ordinance and says that it needs no
] illustration to show that these two sec
tions embrace two distinctly separate
/ subjects Of otfense. He says if one had
! been to punish unlawful assemblages
| and the other the sale of Intoxicating
| liquors TO Indians, the two subjects
| would have been no more distinctly sepa-
1 rate.
with respect to the first section" saws
4 the court, 1.-The constitutionality of an
ordinance making the public meeting of
1 Two persons or the parading of two per-
/ soDs in the streets a nisdemeanor pun
ishable by a fine Of 500 or six months'
! imprisonment, or both, may well be
! doubted; but as the validity of the ordi-
nance does not turn on that question, it is
not necessary to remark further upon it,
| The second section has for its subject
an offense in the nature of acriminal con-
| spiracy. Sections 1S2, lS3 and IS4 of the
I