The record-union., 1896-05-13
SUPERIOR VS.. CITY COURT.
Points on Which They Continue to
Disagree.
Sharp Criticisms Between the City
Attorney and Superior Judge
Hinkson.

Ed Allen was found guilty of va
grancy in the Police Court yesterday
and was sentenced to forty days in the
County Jail.
The City Attorney tried to prove that
he was not a California Indian, but, al
though there was not the slightest in
dication that he had a drop of Indian
blood in his veins officer Fisher would
not swear to his lineage farther back
than his knowledge of Aliens parents
but he could not vouch for their par
entage.
City Attorney Brown said he could
not find witnesses who could testify
on this point. He did not feel bound to
comply with the decision of the Supe-
rior Court that demanded impossible
ties of him. He had consulted on this
point with w. A. Anderson, A. L. Hart
E. c. Hart, H. w. Johnson and other
criminal lawyers of recognized ability,
and found they all disagreed with
Judge Hinkson. He recognized the
honesty of purpose of the Judge, but he
dissented entirely from his ruling.
1t had seemed to him lately that sew
eral cases had been reversed in Depart
ment Three on points that had not
been raised by the attorneys of de-
PENDANTS or judgment asked upon them
Justice Davis said he did not like to
disregard the decision of the Superior
Court, but the result of it would be the
discharge of everyone who was brought
before him on the charge of vagrancy
if it devolved upon the City Attorney
to prove that prisoners are not Califor-
MIA Indians.
He had taken great pains to examine
into the subject, as it is matter of
considerable moment. He had never
known an attorney to raise the point in
his court in defense of a client, but they
go up to the Superior Court and raise
the point there on appeal A prominent
lawyer had told him that he felt
ashamed to raise the point when he
did so, as he had no faith in it, but it
was the only way to save his client.
City Attorney Brown, in the course of
his remarks, referred to the Judge of
the Third Department of the Superior
Court very sarcastically, and twice said
the Judge had no standing of any prom
inence as a lawyer before he went on
the bench.
JUDGE HINKSON'S VIEWS.
A Record Union representative
called on Judge Hinkson last evening:
and asked him concerning the ruling
complained of, and what he thought of
the remarks of City Attorney Brown
concerning him.
He replied that the verbal assault
did not trouble at all him. AS to the
law of the case, that the Superior Court
was right, there was not the shadow of
a doubt.
What do you say to the statement
that it cannot be proven that one is
not a California Indian
Judge Hinkson replied that it was in
excusable stupidity, and he was unable
to believe that it emanates from law
yers rather than from nonentities He
could understand it as coming from
those who contend that when an ordi-
nance makes it a misdemeanor for a
person to sell liquor without a license.
in order to convict him it is only nee
esssary to prove that he sold the
liquor, and that it is not necessary to
prove that he did SO without a license.
1t comes probably from those who do
not know that it is necessary, wheh
prosecuting a person under a city ordi-
nance, to prove that the crime was COM
mitted in the city. Such is the legal
caliber with which the Superior Court
has to deal in these instances.
Il have been compelled he added
ito reverse the judgment of the Police
Court time and again: First, because
the officials of that tribunal do not seem
to know that where the statute provides
that California Indians shall not be
convicted of vagrancy, it is necessary to
prove that the defendant is not such an
Indian; second, because these officials
appear not to know that it is necessary
to prove that a person sold liquor with
out a license before he can be con-
victed of violating an ordinance max
ing it a misdemeanor for doing such
business without a license And third
because the same officers think the
venue of the case is proven by showing
that a crime was committed on K street
or L street, instead of showing that it
was committed in the city of Sacra-
mento, in this State
Judge Hinkson said he had no feel
ing in the matter other than that
which ought to be entertained by any
Judge who finds plain provisions of the
law stumbled over and avoided and
brutally treated by officials who have
the law before them, and are presumed