The San Francisco call., 1904-03-17

In the Blue Book OF San Francisco |
there is no mention of the Diamond So
cial Club, nor is such an organization |
alluded to in the San Francisco City |
Directory yet that it exists and has |
made its being felt in the vicinity of
Twenty-fourth and Castro streets was
proved yesterday before Judges Fritz !
and Cabaniss, each Of whom had a.
number Of the members before him on
a charge Of disturbing the peace. The
defendants numbered a dozen and their !
aged ranged from nine to fifteen years
On the prison books they were reg
istered as. Charles Mcdonald, Fritz
Dirking Jr.. Joseph Rind. Harry Han
lon, Charles Anderson, William john
son, F. K. Scofeld, Neil Mcmahon, Viii
liam Connor, Thomas Matty and. 4.
Thomas Pease.
Police officers Bolton, Moltke and
Davey, who collaborated in the com
plant. alleged that the Diamonds had
no regular place for meeting, but most
| ly congregated at Twenty-fourth and
Castro streets, where they executed the
ostensible objects of their fraternity by
casting stones at passing street cars,
attaching empty tin cans to the caudai
appendages Of the neighborhood dogs
and pelting inoffensive pedestrians
with garbage and uncomplimentary
! language. That they were associated
| for such purposes the Diamonds en-
phatically and Indignantly denied, de-
claring that they were banded solely
| Cor social intercourse, intellectual ad-
vancement and other innocuous pur-
suits.
Then why were you arrested and
| brought here?" Judge Cabaniss asked
the spokesman of the bunch of Dia-
monds that glittered before him.
! Because" was the ingenious an
| swer, some cops hates ter see kids
enjoy themselves. We wasn't t'rowin'
no rocks at cars, or we wasn't tyin' no
cans ter no dogs tails, or we wasn't
chuckin no insultery at goils Wen desc
bulls busted on us like a band of pirates
an snaked US in. If dat's wot youse
call justice. den I wants no more of it,
i A murmur of approval from the other
Diamonds was suppressed by the
bailiff and the court continued the cases
! until corroborative testimony can be
rounded up by the complaining police
1 men. Judge Fritz made similar dis
posal of the Diamonds assigned to him.
w H. McFall, a railroad construc-
tion hand. displayed bandaged heaG
I in substantiation of his complaint that
he had been smitten with club WELD
ed by w. A. Brown bartender in the
saloon at 911 Kearny street Brown
did not deny the allegation, but plead
ed that the assault was justified by
the provocation. which consisted of the
complainant refusal 10 pay for a
drink which he had ordered and con-
sumed. Besides, argued the mixoogist,
he was eXasperated by the conduct of
d man who was with McFall These
pleadings were taken under considera-
tion by Judge Conlan and judgment
will probably be handed down to-day.
For soliciting aims from pedestrians
on Market street Charles Norton and
John Manning. strapping big vagrants.
were sent UP for three months apiece
( by Judge Conlan. and for a similar
. offense John Collins was given just
double that dose by Judge Mogan. It
was shown that Collins made a special
ty of accosting women and insulting
them If they failed to respond to his
appeal for money. He looked more like
a shabby-genteel workman than a pro
fessiOnal mendicant, and Police Officer
Jordan stated that the fellow was a
student Of the art of makeup"
Mrs. Sarah Flores of Fruitvale Wig
! orously attempted to convince Judge
Mogan that ]. NJ Lauricke, a tamale
and enchilada peddler, had stolen two
boilers and an overcCat from among
the personal effects left by her father
when he was killed by a railroad train
January % last. January 80, the COM
.plainant averred Lauricke went to the
family residence and purloined the
property described, but she failed to
produce any witnesses who had actual
ly seen the goods in the defendants
possession, although she summoned
quite a number Of persons TO testify
on that point
Unless you can prove that this man
stole the boilers and the overcoat
don't see how 1 can hold him." said
the Judge.
What more proof do you want than
the fact that the property was stolen
and that the defendants partner was
seen using the boilers at Ingleside ?"
demanded the witness.
THE fact that the goods were stolen
does not prove that this defendant stole
them" replied the Judge, land you
must remember that his partner is not
now on trial"
well, if this defendant didn't steal
the boilers I'd like to know how his
partner got hold of them?"
II must plead inability to enlighten
you" murmured the court.
And the overcoat-if Lauricke didn't
steal that overcoat. who did?"
You may search me-" answered the
bench
well, of all things" exclaimed Mrs.
Flores Here 1 am, just as sure as
1 can be that Lauricke stole those boil
ers and that overcoat, and here he is
likely to be discharged. Did any one
ever?"
Cant answer: pass me-" was the
] T,doa'c xvaariIv daliverad raoponSa