The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-07-26
THEORDINANCEVALID
Judge Osborn Sustains the
Early Closing Law.
FORFEITURE CLAUSE IS VOID.
But That Does Not Anece the Validity
OF the Whole-The Case 20 Dc
Appealed.

rr1er . -uisn- oe JUICE oz5orn e she
superser court yesterday the e-zrly-c3oslng
ordnance Is valid. ard any saloon-kessFsr
whc violates It's provisions Is Liable 70 tae
pe5z5ty for breaking Ire iag. TIE matter
came before the cozrt Il the case OF the
CITY ~ Pearson. CT @ hearing on res'ssw
Of ths dec.Sl0z OF Judge GAsgOx - the
municipal court ard Il involved oray
demurrer fled II the complaint n fne
io&sr cours.
TIE ordnance provides tia. an offender
on conviction shzE he fined not less than
- nor more than $50. or by Imprisonment
not 70 exceed thzrfF DAYS. Or ~ both such
fire and LmUrlsoaneEs. and that Any IT,
cerse 10 the person convicted shall Re FOR
feftsd BY the fact OF conviction without
any farther steps or the part OF the city
or its officials. Parsons demurrer Was
based On the ground that the ordnance
was invalid bt<zusS the general laws OF
The STATE c1d rot give the authority for
forfeiture an addition 10 me an1 i-npris-
ourseuf- Judge Glasgow sustained the
demurrer. holding that inzsmrch as the
forfeiture clause could not be severed
from tho penal clause. the ordinance In
entirety fell 10 the ground. Prom this
decision the city appealed In reversing
the lower court J1<fxs Osborn said sub
eiantHliy.
The only question raised I'm this pro-
section OF the ordinance. which provides.
ar addition TO the penalty OF nDe and I'M
prisonment On conviction for violation,
that tie offenders license shall be for
fe4ted- II is claimed that the ordnance.
because OF the forfeiture clause. Is In
valid. the ground taken being that the
city cannot give the municipal court aa-
thority TO do such q thing. I am salts
fed that that position Is true. that the
city cannot confer jurisdiction on the
municipal court 10 forfeit the license OF a
person convicted OF violation OF the or
dinsuce. and 10 thar extent. and to that
alone, sostain the defendant
But the question IL. although admitting
the forfeiture clause TO be void. can the
ordinance be held good. excluding that
portion? / hold that the ordnance Is
valid. and that the city had a right to
pass II, and that the question OF forfeit
nre IS not necessarily involved In this
matter
This position is in accord with recent
decision OF the SUPREME court in the case
Of Joliffe VS.. Brown. where the court held
that the fact that ore portion OF a statute
which IS not inserdSpendent on another Is
invalid does not affect the validity of the
whose- The demurrer is oyerraled."
COUNSEL for Pearson at once took an
exception and gave notice OF an intention
10 appeal TO the supreme court.
MAJ ~ WVUA srStt&Aas hA*HoN4s-eN1 s-2aAs
Ia consideration Of Judge osboTn's ruiz
ing. reversing Judge Glasgow's decision
in the matter OF the o'clock closing or
dinsnce. he would make no movement to-
ward the enforcing of the ordinance I'M
81 the return TO the city of Chief OF Po-
lice Reed. who * al present out of the
city and who viii probably be back to-
morrow. After Mr.. Reeds return the
matter VIII hs discussed and steps for
the enforcement of the ordinance taken.
Mayor Wood says that notices will be
served upon all dealers and sufficient
time after the notice allowed for them
10 make their arrangements 70 conduct
their business according TO law.