The San Francisco call., 1896-02-16
MRS. DAVIDSON IN COURT.
Her Attorneys Submit a Demur-
rer to the Informa-

Her Attorneys Submit a Demur-
rer to the Informa-
ton.
Mrs. Davidson made her first appear
ance before the Superior Court yesterday.
She was arraigned before Judge Bahrs, but
| instead OF her plea demurrer to the in
formation was filed by her attorneys, and
greater part OF the afternoon was spent
in arguing'it.
The demurrer which Mr.. Gallagher SUBJ
mltted was drawn up as follows:
The People OF the State of Caiifornia)
Mary A. Davidson, Defendant>
DEMURRER.
Now comes the above-named defendant
Mary A. Davidson, and demurs TO the inforrna-
ton fled in the above entitled action upon
the following grounds, viz:
I.
That said information does not suosta n tally
conform to the requirements OF section $50 Of
the Penal Code of California.
That the said information does not .suostsn.
tally conform to the requirements OF section
951 Of the Penal Code of California.
III.
That the said information does not substau-
| tally conform to the requirements OF section
952, Penal Code of California.
".
That the said information does not contain
statement OF the acts constituting any ofense
in ordinary and concise language and in such
manner as TO enable a person of common
intelligence to understand what is intended.
"
That said Information is not direct and Ger
| tain as it regards the offense charged.
| VI.
That the said information Is not Direct and
certain, as 1t regards the particular cIr0om.
| stances of the offense charged, the same being
necessary to constitute complete defense.
That the facts stated in said information DC
| not constitute public offense.
VIII.
That the said information charges more than
one ofense.
WALTER GALLAGHER and
J. j. GUILFoYLE,
Attorneys for defendant.
Mr.. Gallagher, in his argument, took
the position that Mrs. Davidson was an
agent, not a principal, and her acts could
not, therefore, be censured. He said, dur
ing his argument:
An agent cannot be convicted of crime un-
less it may be some violation of the rights Of
his principal. The fact that the defendant
carried a verbal message to DR.. Brown does not
alter her character as agent. Would IL be con-
tended that if the message had been written
Brown by Mrs. Davidson, Mrs. Davidson would
then be liable? Or suppose that the District
Attorney charged directly that defendant was
the agent of Mrs. Baddin in all that she said
or did, would there then be any doubts as to
the insufiiciency of this information2
When fact is alleged, which is capable of
two interpretations, one of which favors inno-
cepce, the presumption favoring innocence
must be INDUCED in, for the law demands that
the presumption be always against the pleader.
When it is alleged that Mrs. Davidson declared
to DR.. Brown that she was the agent of Mrs.
Baddin, that declaration not being denied is
equivalent to a distinct allegation on the one
hand and an admission on the part of the
people that the defendant was the agent of
Mrs. Baddin, and SO the court must conclude
l.O,fx hA nf pod df,t
tion she had with Mrs. Baddin was related to
DR.. Brown.
The prosecution has drawn from the facts
the conclusion that the defendant was not the
agent of Mrs. Baddin, and the only way in
which they can hope TO sustain the presump-
ton.
If the doctor had feared Mrs. Davidson might
| impute to him certain things, the imputation
| should disclose that fact; and if the money was
! some other person, the pleader should so de-
| clare; and if the defendant had declared and
| threatened that she would, If disappointed in
| the financial venture, publish and impute to
| DR.. Brown certain acts in which Miss Overman
| figured, the information upon that point
| should not be silent
In fact, there should be no room for doubt
| as to what the people charged in the informa-
| ton, and if there be any doubt the very oppo-
| site to the theory of the prosecution will be
presumed. Hence, because of the prosecution
| failing to positively state certain facts, the
court must presume q state OF facts as follows:
That the doctor did not fear that Mrs. DAY..
| idson would impute to him certain things If
she did not get $500; that she did not get any
money of any sum whatever for herself, and
| that she was the agent of Jane Elizabeth Bad
din. Therefore, our conclusion being that de-
fendant was an agent, the people in the in
| formation have charged that defendant so
claimed, and the people have admitted that
claim by failing to deny 1t. While the de.
fendant denies that she was the agent of Mrs.
Baddin, but was the agent OF Or. Brown, she Is
not permitted to contradict the presumption
of the law from the allegations set out in this
information, but whatsoever horn OF the di-
lemma the people will hook onto the defend
ant is proclaimed an agent.
An agent is not principal. Our Civil Code,
is one who represents another, called the
principal, in dealing with third persons. Such
representation is called agency"
Walter Hinkle, Assistant District Attor-
ney, and Davis Louderback, special coun-
sci for the prosecution, answered, Mr..
Hinkle following Mr.. Gallagher. Mr..
GuiIfoyle, Mr.. Gallagher's associate, came
next with substantially the same argu-
ments first made, and Mr.. Louderback and
Gallagher closed.
Counsel for the prosecution argued that
the law in reference to obtaining money
by false pretenses had been applied by the
defense to this case OF extortion. It was
claimed that if a person went to another
and refusing to give names announced that
the unknown third party would tell that
which would bring disgrace, the party SO
threatening would be guilty of extortion.
The question of agency, it was argued, was
immaterlal. Besides the prosecution did
not charge that Mrs. Davidson was an
agent. They accused her of being prin-
cipal.