The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-06-17
THEARGUMENTSMADE
ealooE Closing Ordinance Now
With Judge Glasgow.
70 De DECIDED TOMORROW.
Hnatsr Dolan Convicted Of Assault
With Intent Co Commit Murder In
shooting J. NJ. Snyder.
70 De DECIDED TOMORROW.

80 dnal arguments In the case OF the
- n. Charles Pearson. for violating or
1fnsnce Ali. commonly known as the
aeiock closing ordinance, were made yes
eerday Ia the municipal court By 1lsisin
Wlnxtock, attorney for the defendant.
ga City Attorney z. y. Rawson- The
Arguments were listened 10 with consider
ehje interest. despite the fact thai nsmsr-
eas citations were made and knotty law
crob.ems argued pro and con. The finale
wss reached az O'Clock. At which time
Judxs G.asgo. took the matter under adj
yfssmsnt until Thursday afternoon at 2.sD.
vhen he xlsI render his decision.
Ia bis arg a1nent for the city Ar. Exwson
eopssndsd that all OF the objections made
by the 6efene2nf's counsel went either TO
The ins1nlciency OF the ordinance or the
snsafaciency OF the complaint. In sup
port OF the saficisney OF the ordinance
fhs city attorney commended that tina
council In passing tha ordinance, was
authorized 10 do 80 BY the police power
conferred upon X By the constitution OF
tbs state. by tins power conferred upon IL
by the general statutes OF the state. by
ne power conferred on IL by the charter
sdopte6 at the last ELECTION. He held that
the penalty for the violation OF the orai-
nancs consisted wholly IN tho fins or i'm
erssonment or both, and that the forfeit
psnalty and would not be entered
g part OF the judgment OF
the court. but that the forfeiture would
work upon thu conviction or the person
n whose name the license was taken out.
whsthsr convicted by jury or court That
n the forfeiture part Of the ordinance was
void Il did not make void the remaining
art Of the ordinance. but the same would
stand as valid under the usual eonstruc-
t..f4 ~.
ths late license ordinances wzs not . repez,
Of the o'clock closing ordinance. for ths
reason that no provision OF thu o'clock
ordinance vas covered by any provision
Of that License ordinance, and that the
two would stand a. valid ordinances OF
The city. Mr.. Rawson's arguments In the
morning and afsernoon consumed about
three hours time.
Malvln O. winatock argued In both the
morning ard afternoon sessions. lie con-
landed that the ordinance. especially that
portion which provided a penalty must 30
construed as a whole. and THAT II waswrong
ard In conflict with precedent 10 urge that
9 cart Of the penalty. provided BY the or
6fnance could stand and be enforced ana
On invalid part OF the same section be dis
esxarded. In tho afternoon he answered
he city attorney, taking up the various
propositions urged Considerable ttrns
WA consumed IN discussing the diHSsfGo
"a the legal meaning OF the terms for
felt" and revoke" The defense admitted
that undsr the power OF the police rsguga-
tons the city could always revoke for
cause shown. but denied the power OF the
city council to declare q forfeiture as the
penalty for an ofyense. TO such power
having been granted to It BIZ the ieglsla-
tms OF the siata
Concluding" said Mr.. winstock. I'VE
maintain that II Is the duty OF this court
70 declare this ordinance invalid. because
Il violates certain wsll-deaned principles
Of Law. II seeks without express grant
Of authority to declare n forfeiture OF
license as . penalty for the alleged viola
ton Of a city ordinance. II attempts 10
impose \ greater fine and punishment
than would be permitted under state law.
II assumes 10 deprive the court OF the
discretion allowed under state law IL
attempts to confer upon thu municipal
court under the ruise Of forfe!tuTs re-
vocation OF a mans license without a
hearing or any proceedings before the only
body that could legally do the same. We
maintain further that the forfeiture part
OF the ordinance being void. this penal
part of the ordinance II so inseparsbly
interviewer with tho other penal provi-
sion that the court cannot declare any
part OF the same void that does not and
VIII not carry with e The tuyaiidlty OF
the whole ordinance. We therefore ask
this court to sustain the demurrer and
order the discharge Of the defendant Pear
non.a