The San Francisco call., 1895-12-31
If Judge Bahrs' Decision Stands
It Will Hurt the De-
partment.
DAVIS MADE A CONVENIENCE.
Opinion of the Superior Court Known
Beforehand and Preparations
Made for It.

Court of having burglar tools in his pos
session, has created much dissatisfaction
| in the Police Department 1t is argued
| that if the decision is upheld by the Su-
preme Court the prisons and jails OF Cali
fornia will be Immediately relieved OF all
sorts of desperate criminals.
| 1t may be remarked, however, that such
a decision was confidently looked for by
Chief Crowley and Captain Lees, and they
made preparation for it in the case of
| Davis, alias Jack Strauss, convicted on a
| similar charge in Judge Joachimsen's S
court on Friday last. From the District
Attorneys office the purport of Judge
Bahr's decision was given to Captain Lees,
who Immediately determined to find
another subject to fit the case. Ex-Con-
vict Davis happened along about that
time, and he was Immediately pounced
! upon as the proper person to make test
case. The fellow was arrested and brought
before Judge Joachimson for trial. 1t re-
suited in the release of the convict, much
to the chagrin of the Police Department.
They then preferred another charge.
which was heard in Judge Joachinson' S
court on Friday last, resulting in the con-
victon of Davis. The case will be ap-
| pealed to the SUPERIOR Court, though Cap
|
anything less than Supreme Court de-
| cision, and he proposes to exercise every
| possible means to secure an opinion from
| that tribunal.
Judge Bahrs' decision does not surprise
me in the least" said Captain Lees yester-
day. because | krew two weeks ago
I through the District Attorneys office how
he felt about the matter, and with this in
| formation in our possession the only pos
sble thing for us to do was to make an
other arrest, and push it through to the
| Supreme Court. Jack Strauss, or Davis as
| he is better known, was captured about
| this time, and it was determined to make
a test case of this. The first trial resulted
in acauittal but l went to Joachimsen and
showed him the fallacy of his reasoning.
Then second charge was placed against
| Strauss, the hearing of which resulted as
we desired.
1T is stated that Judge Joachimsen was
| ignorant of the Superior Court decision
else he would not have decided against
| Davis. This is mistake, for Judge
! Joachimsen knew all along the opinion of
| Judge Bahrs, but it was not until | had
pointed out the law that he recognized the
error Of his former ruling.
alt is preposterouS to assume for a mo-
ment that the police have not the right to
arrest man caught with burglars tools
in his possession. | grant that if there
were no corroborative evidence in the
shape of past bad character it
man simply because he had these imple-
ments in his possession, but with con-
victed thief it is different. An honest man
| is rot loaded down with such material
and it is only just supposition that a man
is not carrying such things around for his
health.
'It is nonsense to apply the Supreme
| Ccnr Sin Inv Ind How rri-
son on the lottery question as applicable
| to the present issue. The cases are not
| parallel by any means, and am surprised
| that man of Judge Bahrs' knowledge
| of the law-but had better not talk about
! that now. He was doubtless conscien-
tious in the decision rendered, though
| we do not by any means agree with him..
THE criticism made by Captain Lees re-
| garding my decision III the case of The
| People versus James Gleason, who was
! charged and convicted in the Police Court
of having burglar tools in his possession"
| said Judge Bahrs last evening, twas based
upon a moral view of the situation with
out regard to an unbiased Interpretation of
| the law under which he was prosecuted.
Gleason was not prosecuted under the
Penal Code of California, it being thought
| that conviction could more easily be OBJ
| tanned under section IL of the General Or
ders of the Board of Supervisors of this
City and County. passed to prohibit the
| unlawful possession of burglars tools, the
construction of which ordinance is identi-
cal to the one passed in Los Angeles pro-
| hibiting the possession OF lottery tickets,
| which has recently been declared uncon-
| tutional and void by the Supreme Court of
| this State.
|. "The decision to which have reference
and under which / released Gleason from
custody was rendered by the Supreme
~ H. L.
Wong Hane, who was held in confinement
by the Chief of Police of the city of Los
| Angeles under warrant of arrest issued
by the Police Judge of that city upon
complaint charging him with the violation
of a city ordinance in that ne did willfully
and unlawfully have in his possession
such possession being neither innocent nor
for lawful purpose-a certain tool. de-
vice and paper. used and intended to be
used in preparing and drawing a certain
lottery.
"The ordinance under. which the COM
plant was made is as follows:
The Mayor and Council of the city OF Los
Angeles do ordain as follows: Section 1. 1t
shall be unlawful fo- any person to have in his
session is innocent or for lawful purpose any
lottery ticket, or any ticket certificate, paper
or instrument. .purporting or representing, or
understood to be or to represent, any ticket,
chance, share or interest i'll or dependent upon
the event of any lottery, or any tool, instru-
ment stamp or devise, used or intended to be
used in or Cor contriving, preparing, making,
writing, producing, stamping or getting ready
for sale or distribution any lottery ticket or
tickets.
Sec. 2. Any person who shall violate any of
the provisions of this ordinance shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon
conviction thereof shall be punished by fine
not exceeding $500 or be imprisoned in the
City Jail for term not exceeding six months,
or by both such fine or imprisonment.
IN. G. Norton, representing Wong
Hane, made an application to the Su-
preme Court for writ OF habeas corpus.
The court granted the application upon
the ground that the ordinance was uncon
stitntional in that it placed on the one
accused of its violation the burden of show
ing the innocence OF his possession.
| t"The ordinance under which Gleason was
| prosecuted states that it shall be unlawful
| for any person to have in his possession
any tools of the description known as
| burglars tools unless it is shown that
such possession is innocent or for a lawful
purpose, the construction being identical
ssa6nA