The San Francisco call., 1903-12-24
JUDGE DEF INES
POLICE RIGHTS
Application of Jean Pom for
an Injunction Against Chief
Whitman Is Granted by Cook
Is NOT LEGAL
Court Finds Nothing, However,
to Warrant a New Trial in
the Case of George Sellinger

Judge Cook handed down r decision
yesterday afternoon on the application
for an injunction made by Jean Pom,
owner and proprietor Of restaurant
street to restrain the police through
Chief Whitman from trespassing upon
the entrance TO the premises cn which
his places of business are located, al
leging such trespassing to be an injury.
The Judge granted the injunction and
ordered the plaintiff to prepare findings.
At the same time the Judge handed
down a decision in the case Of George
Sellinger against Chief Whitman deny
ing Sellinger's motion for a new trial.
Selliuger rs the lessee of thu buildings
in the rear of Pon's restaurant. They
are used for immoral purposes and Sell
linger applied for an injunction to re-
strain\the police from trespascing upon
his premises, but the Judge refused to
grant it.
In regard to the Pom case the de-
Cision says:
1 can see no distinction between this case
ana the case OF PdrIS vs.. whitman, trieQ ana
decided in Department No of this court; and
for the reasons given by Judge Seawell in his
opinion filed in that case am satisfied that
plaintiff herein should have judgment as
prayed for in his complaint.
OF course the injunction only prevent
trespass and the unlawful acts Of the defend
ant; that which the law permits him to do he
can continue to do. He undoubtedly has the
right TO enter the premises for the purpose OF
serving a warrant. order writ or process OF
court If any he has. or to make an arrest for
a crime committed within his view presence,
or to prevent treason, felony breach Of the
peace; but no man, whether he be an officer or
mere citizen, has the right to picket blockade
or interfere with the legitimate business Of
another, ana 70 place ofhcers or men in 'front.'
Of a mans place Of business and stop every
person entering the premises to take their
names or in any way TO intirnfdate those seek
ing TO enter such premises unlawful in
reference with the business therein conducted.
and can unQuestionably be prevented by in
junction; it is unlawful and it is trespass
against the rights Of another.
II is no answer to say, as does defendants
counsel, that no place can be made sane
in this case. that crime is charged to
have been committed in the restaurant or
cigar store of plaintiff, and IL crime is COM
mitted in the rear OF the premises in which
plaintiffs business is located the law is am
ply sufficient TO prevent its becoming
the situation il the arrest is TO be for
treason, felony or breach OF the public peace
by loud and tumutuous noises, the arrest can
be made without any warrant. because for
such purposes private premises may be law
The of the ''Nymphia.'' decided by
Judges Hebbard and Murasky, is In no way
parallel case 10 this; the same is true OF the
case of Pom and Vincent and Lair decided re-
spectively by Judges SeawelI and Kerrigan;
likewise the case of Selinger. decided by my
self None OF these cases presented anything
having the best analogy this. The case OF
Paris. hereinbefore referred IN. decided BY
Judge Seawell, is similar to this case and as
before stated for the sons given In Judge
Seawelrs opinion in that case. the Injunction
here prayed for must be granted Plaintiff
VIII prepare findings.