Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-04-17
ARGUED
Hearing Of Habsss Corpus Proceedings
Begun In The Supreme Court.
mir. BURKE srRIscs A SURPRISE.
ne Raises the Point THAT the Justice
naa No Right TO send the Case On
conseation THAT the Two Maupin
Bius Arc I'm Conflict. aud Void.

The hearing Of the habeas corpus cas-
brought by Richard NJ. Lacy % test th'
constitutionality Of the Msupin act pro
hIbstlag foreign book-making In Virginia
was begun in the Supreme Court OF Ap
peals yesterday.
The styles OF the case is Lacy vs.. PAT
mer. the latter being the Sheriff OF Alex
ardria county. to whose custody the pc
titioner was consigned by the examining
magistrate. The preiiminaries and inc
opening argument OF Mr.. Burke, OF coun'
sci for Lacy. or really, the race-traeR
people. consumed the remainder OF yes
terday's session Of the court, after th'
opinions had been handed down. and tht
further hearing viii consume the whole
Of to-day.
Messrs. Edmund Burke. Samuel G.
Brent. Francis l.. Smith, and r.. Walton
Moore appeared as counsel for the racins
neopIe and Attorney General Scott rep
resented the State. Mr.. Leonard Mar
bury, Of Alexandria, was to be associated
with Major Scott but for some reason
he was not present yesterday.
AMEND THE PETITION.
II was shortly after the noon hour when
Clerk TAYLOR called the case Of Lacy
ys Palmer. Sheriff, and Mr.. Burke arose
and. addressing the court, asked per-
mission TO amend the petition originally
filed for a writ OF habeas corpus. he
explained that the amendment consisted
only of a bare and succinct statement OF
facts, and the Acknowledgement raising
no objections thereto, the court permitted
the petition TO be amended.
The case was then regularly gone INTO,
and Attorney~General Scott read th@
mltlmus on, which the prisoner, Lacy
was committed to jail. together with .ne
charge against him-namely, that ne diu
ofger an Alexandria county wager TO
he niaced on a certain horce racing with
out the State of Virginia.
Mr. Burke then read Lacy's demurrer
20 the mitimus. and called attention 10
the clause in the petition setting iortn
that the wager, which was 10 nave peen
transmitted to Wheeling, w. va, was
NOT IN violation of the laws OF that state.
The Attorney General suggested that
the statement as 10 the laws OF west NH-
sinia was q matter that should De proven,
After some little discussion the coui
ruled that the case might be proceeoeu
with, and the law OF West virginia yea.
ing on the case might De looAeu INV
later.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
Mr.. Burke referred to the recenty-en-
acted law giving exclusive Juriso.c. lou
in rnisdemeanor cases to )ustices oI 'n
peece. and said that the commitment va
The Justice was Illegal, In that ne uiu
80 bavA the right to send case OF that
dsscrlntion on TO a county court, and the
Comfy Court had no right TO try IL. MT,
uurke offered. however, TO waive inns
,,oin. and have the court pass upon the
merits Of the case. o,,
Tho point came like bombshen upon
all nresent. and the court at once du-
sonrned TO the conference room TO con-
sider II. After ten minutes the JUDGES
ssoended the bench again, ana fresiueht
Keith stated that the question OF ?urls-
dietion was a very grave one, anu U,is
that should be considered caIe.uns' -
court was. however, content TO take
a. case as II is, and consider II, exclu-
s,,,o of the point raised. This was agree
sh,s IN both sides, and Mr. Burke began
Ne aro1ment, He first contendeu thal
the body of the Maupn act was entireiy
horren of any allusion TO pool-seiling' ana
aged no penalty therefor, ana YET .he
title was simply TO prevent pooi-sehlns
stc and was therefore insuinclent anu
misleading, and consequently uncohs.i-
s,,,ionaI Mr. Burke dwelt at CONSIDER
able length on this point. ana sups s',
ouently discussed the effect or the p,ii
setting forth that 1t was harsh legisla'
a., which so restricted citizen
as TO prohibit him from senuins o.
,,,onsv ont of the State for any purpose
whatever. II was clearly In the province
~ the Legislature to enact laws pro
hih,tin1 gambling In this State, but tnett
,.,aS no right vested in it to prohlpi'
a citizen from sending his money De
s,ona Inc borders OF the Commonwealth
for rambling purposes, If he so desireu
THE TWO ACTS COMPARED.
f.omnaring the two Maupin acts-tn'
one prohibiting local and the other ior
ei,-r, pool-selling-Nr. Burke showed Una
the nenalties prescribed by the TWO ac,'
we've dissimilar though Furnishing simi
,ar orYenees. and he contended indirectly
that by the peculiar phraseology Oh .n'
two acts the one repealed the other
toth OF these acts, he said, were ap
,Sroved hv the Governor on the SAM
day and ne submitted opinions decldint
80, whom two acts, the one repugnan
90 the other. are approved on the SAINT
Sav n IL impossible for the courts u
aacida which should have precedence
snd hoth shall fail. He therefore con
tended In general terms that one Maupii
act null.fied the other. and that. as
result, none OF the anti-race-traek gam
hing laws enacted by the last Legisia
ture were valid.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Mr.. Burke, In concluding his argu
ment. said he wanted an interpretauoi
from the Supreme Court not only OF IN
constitutionality of the Maupin law, bu
az the interstate commerce law, as en-
acted by the Congress of the unite'
states. He dwelt at some length on tn
Fights OF free and unrestricted commerc'
between the States, and OF the evii
police interference Herewith.
Mr. Burke concluded at Few minutes
before O'clock. and the court adjourned
until this morning at IL O'clock.