The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-03-29

reasonable grounds for suspecting that a
violation of the laws and ordinances of
the city was being contemplated
Attorney Ach for the Jockey Club en-
deavored TO bolster up his case by repeat
ed interruptions in the way of PROFOUND
ing Hypothetical questions TO the oppos-
ing counsel but the answers he received
were not such as he probably anticipated
or desired. District Attorney Murphy lis
tened attentively TO the arguments ad-
vanced and from time to time offered sug-
gestions to Mr.. McEnerney which the lat
ter was prompt to avail himself OF. Chlet
Lees was also an interested spectator, sit
ting behind the District Attorney through
the greater part Of the proceedings. Har-
~ Corbett dropped in during the after
noon and remained until the conclusion
OF Mr. MCEnerney 5 argument. he was
the only representative of the pool-SelIlng
fraternity present during the day. Dis
trict Attorney Murphy will make the clos
ing argument for the respondents this
morning As a preliminary to the formal
presentation of his case Mr.. McEnerney
said: It,. 80.
aside the modification Of the injunction,
such modification naturally leaving the
original injunction in full effect, Il is not
out of the way for me here to dwell on the
merits and legality Of the original tnjunc-
M. McEnerney ridiculed the assump-
ton that the police were debarred by law
from entering a public or quasi-public
place without the permission of the pro-
prietors thereof unless armed with war
rants He held that the duty of the pc
lice was as much 10 prevent the commits
sion of crime as to trace down the guilty
and secure their punishment after a
crime had been committed, and he de-
cIared that a court of equity was lot or
ganized for the purpose Of interfering
with the criminal prosecution of Vioiators
Of the laws. Before q court of equity will
interfere it must be shown that the dam
age to the complaining party is irrepara-
BILE not alone by affidavit or allegation.
but by a clear presentation OF facts. In
the present case the petitioners pretend
ed to have suffered by the entrance of the
police into the grounds Of the Jockey
Club without paying the regular admis-
sion fee; by the jostling of the patrons
of the races by the police; by the conse-
quent Discrimination of the people to re-
sort to a place liable to be raided by the
officers Of the law. and by the taking Of
personal property without due warrant Of
law He contended that for any damage
or all of these acts they had ample re-
course in damage suits against the re-
spondests, individually or collectively.
He argued however, that the respondents
had, in entering the premises Of the peti-
TONERS, exercised their legal rights by
common law.
man cannot result in legal injury to an
other" argued the attorney. Therefore
if the police enter the racetrack grounds,
even by the payment of the admission
proprietors. even if the patrons of the
place do fee, and the police cannot be en-
Joined from arresting persons discovered
in the act of violating the law. or for jost-
ling those whom they arrest"
The attorney cited numerous authorities
in support of his argument that the po-
lice did not exceed their authority in
forcing an entrance into the racetrack for
the purpose of preventing the commission
of crime He knew of no decision exactly
covering the present case, although he
quoted many cases in which the princi-
pies involved were the same and urged
that the present afforded an excellent
opportunity for the court to render an
opinion in this specific case in line with
other decisions in conflicts between the
police authorities and known violators of
the law.
1.-THE rule is well established" said the
attorney, that he who comes into equity
must come with clean hands. It is a no.
torious fact that the plaintiffs in this case
have been conducting what is known in
common law as a disorderly house and
that gambling has been permitted to
flourish unrestricted on their grounds, ell
of which is detrimental TO public morality