Amador ledger., 1902-10-31

it? Does that excuse excess of author
| ity on the part of an officer? Lester
was not kicking. He was chuck ling
over his good fortune in being run into
| Amador county to get u term of two
years for a crime of great enormity in
the the eyes of all cattlemen-namely,
cattle stealing. We have yet to hear
| from the cattle men how they relish
this merciful Intervention by Amador
authorities in behalf of one caught in
very act of preying upon their business
Interests. The personal filings at the
editor of the Ledger we deem unworthy
| of notice. Also, the hard names hurled
| with questionable taste at our corre-
spondent, A, Maron, we pass by in ST.
lence. But to set at rest all insinnatiouS
as to the correctness OF the facts. we
herewith publish certified copy of the
record in the Justices court:
In the Justice Court of Township No One,
| County of Amador State of California
The People of the State of California Plain
tiff, vs. William H Lester, Defendant.
Action, felony, to wit, grand larceny, C. P.
Vicini, attorney for plaintiff, state of Cali
fornia, county of Amador, S. Personally ap-
peared before me on this 9th day of September.
1900, U S Gregory of township No one. in the
county of Amador, state of California, who first
being duly sworn, on oath, depoSeS, complains,
county of Ell Dorado state of California, on the
18th day of September ~. d 1900, ut Shake
Ridge, in the county of Amador, state afore
said, committed the crime of felony, TO wit,
grand larceny. The said William IL. Lester
at the time and place aforesaid, feloniously did
kill, steal take and carry away from the
mountain range of the estate of George Allen
deceased one COW, the same being then and
there the personal property of the said estate
of George Allen, deceased, and a warrant of ar
rest having been duly issued ON said 2ith day
of September, 1900
September 25 1900 said defendant William
81. Lester, having been duly arrested thereon
and brought before this court by p. Kelly, con
stable, and after being informed of all his
rights, was duly arraigned, said his true name
is William "a Lester, and ready for examina-
tion. c. p. Vicini, district attorney, appeared
on the part OF the people. The defendant did
not desire an attorney, and did not care to have
the evidence to be taken down in writing. U S
Gregory was sworn, and testified on the part of
the people. The defendant did not care to
cross examine tie witness. People rest. The
court asked the defendant If he has any wit
ness to introduce, and wants to make any
statement The defendant answered that he
has no witness to introduce nor wants to make
any statement Examination closed and sub
mitted to the court without argument. 1t ap-
pearing TO me that the onenSe in the within
deposition mentioned, felony, to wit, grand
larceny, has been committed, and that there is
sufficient cause to believe the within named
William H Lester guilty thereof, l order that
he be held to answer to the same, and that he
be admitted to bail in the sum OF one thousand
..
county of Amador, until he gives such bail.
Dated this s5th day of September, 1900
II. GoLDNER,
Justice of the peace in and for said township.
l hereby certify that the within is u true
copy of my docket. II. GoLDNER,
Now, about the show licenses, which
he says were collected after Oct. /. and
will be reported in the next quarterly
statement. Section of the license or
dinance reads:
Whenever the rate of license tax by this ordin-
ance imposed is fixed at sum for a quarter of
a year. or any other period, the license tax for
the whole of such quarter of year. or other
period, must be paid in advance.
Another part of the ordinance fixes
the license for show as follows:
For travelling minstrels, shows, travelling dra-
matte or theatrical performances 81 so per
day, or $40 per week.
How comes it that this pay in advance
provision-so essential to the vitality of
the ordinance-is no longer regarded
as obligatory. The license tax that
should have been collected rom the
Morrell company alone before Oct |,
amounted to $40 at the weekly rate,
and considerably more at the day rate
And yet not a dollar was reported for
the whole quarter preceding October L.
Why were the Interests of the county
jeopardized by deliberate departure
from the law for the benefit of outside
license payers? To give the same ratio
of concession to resident business men
liq uorilicenses would have to be collect
ed yearly, after each individual had run
up a bill of $50 due the county OF
course after this ventilation, the show
licenses referred to will figure in the
next statement. We were under the
impression that the Morrell company
played in lone several times after Oct.
4. We could give the reasons why rev
euue from licenses has increased. 1t is
due to increase of business houses and
businesses subject to license. Citizens
will conclude that where such looseness
prevails as herein indicated, the fullness
of time has come to make change