Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-05-15
PLACED UNDER BOND
Pool Room Operators Sent to
Higher Court.
WITNESSES EXAMINED
MAGISTRATE BEHREND FIXES
THE BOND AT 81 600.
Counsel for Defendants Wall and
Humphrey Question the HaEis-
trate's Jurisdiction.
WITNESSES EXAMINED

to law was the substance Of the words
spoken by Magistrate Behrend this morn
ing in disposing of the case against Arthur
WALL president of the Maryland Telegraph
Company, and Percy 7. Humphrey, owner
Of the pool room property at kenllWorth.
The magistrate he'd both men for court
and bond in the sum Of $1,000 was given
by them. Richard N. Ryon, who went on
their bond at the time of their arrest. quail
flied as bOndsman.
Court convened at II o'clock on the We
randa at the home of Mr.. Allen w. NAL
lery, almost in sight of the pool room.
States Attorney j. Hampton Magruder was
on hand to look out for the interests of the
county, while the defendants were repre-
sented by Attorneys James c. Rogers, Rob
ert w. Wells and George S. Hoover. Hav-
ing overruled motion to quash the war
rant, the magistrate announced that he was
ready to proceed with the hearing. Counsel
for the defendants stated that they would
waive hearing and asked the magistrate
to fix bond.
Mr.. Magruder, for the state. said he pre-
ferred to have witnesses examined. When
this had been done, and the question Of the
amount of bond was reached, Mfr: Rogers
said, in view of the testimony that had
been heard, and naturally thinking the case
was one of prosecution and not persecution,
he thought the bond would not be fixed
very high. The matter of requiring bond.
he explained, is merely for the purpose of
inSuring the attendance OF the defendants.
Magistrate Behrend suggested that he
would fix the bond at 81 600. the maximum
amount.
What is $1,000 to these menu he asked.
"They make so much money that they
don't mind throwing that much away"
But, your honor, said counsel, the rich
md In
eff your honor thinks that these men
make $1,000 a day and ought to be hanged,
said Mr.. Rogers, then it's a matter for
your honor to determine the fact.
The bond was given and the defendants
drove to the pool room, while others who
had composed the party returned to the
city.
Arguments in Defendants Behalf.
Mr.. Rogers, for the defendants. begun the
proceedings by fling his motions to quash
the warrants against his clients. In his
motions he alleged that Magistrate Behrend
was without authority in the cases. He
represented that as the justice had been APP
pointed to serve in Kent district, or the
thirteenth election district, he had no right
to issue warrants for the arrest of persons
who were alleged to have committed misde-
meanors IN the Bladensburg, or second
election district
In the motion in the case of Mr.. Wall 1t
is set out that he is president of the Mary
land Telegraph Company, and that the Of
fee of the company is located in the Bla-
densburg district. In the case Of Mr..
Humphrey counsel averred that he is en-
ployed by the telegraph company in the
district mentioned In each case it was
contended that the Justice Is appointed
under and by virtue Of the authority Of the
constitution and general laws of the state
Of Maryland. and has only jurisdiction in
the cases of misdemeanors alleged to have
been committed within the confines Of the
district for which he Is appointed and quail
flied.
In conclusion the defendants counsel
averred that the magistrate was without
jurisdiction.
Mr.. Rogers read the motions and argued
that the law is substantially as set out
therein. and he therefore thought the war
rants should be Quashed and the defend
ants discharged.
Mr.. Wells and Mr.. Hoover followed States
Attorney Magruder. who argued that the
court has the Jurisdiction to issue the war
rant and hear the case.
Counsel for the defendants contended that
the law In regard to the duties of magis-
trate Is specific and that his duties are
confined to the particular election district
for which he Is appointed. Mr.. Wells
said 1t was certainly not the intention of
the lawmakers to permit a man to be picked
up In one part of the county and dragged
off to another.
Mr.. Rogers cited decision of the courts
rights of magistrates. and told of the law
in this city, which defines the confines OF
the district in which magistrates or JUS
tees of the peace have jurisdiction.
Mr.. Magruder's Response.
States Attorney Magruder responded to
the argument and said that the decision in
the Baltimore case has no bearing what
ever on the case Of the defendants, Wall
and Humphrey. In Baltimore city, he
stated. the law is entirely different. Mr..
Wall. as president Of the Maryland Tele-
graph Company, was charged with con-
Quoting business in violation Of the law OF
1898. and Mr.. Humphrey, as owner of the
building. was charged with permitting
gambling upon his premises.
The section under which the prosecution
was instituted provides: 1T shall not be
lawful for any person or persons, or asso-
Citations Of persons. or for any corporations
within the state of Maryland, to bet, wage
or gamble in any manner, or by any means,
or to make or sell a book or pool on the re-
suit of any trotting, pacing or running race
Of horses or other beasts, or race. contest
or contingency of any kind. or to establish,
keep, rent, use or occupy. or knowingly
suffer to be used, kept or rented or occu-
pied, any house. building, vessel, grounds
or place, or portion Of any house,
building. vessel. grounds or place, on land
OF water, within the state of Maryland, for
the purpose of betting. wagering or gam
making, selling or buying books or pools
therein or thereon upon the result of any
race or contest or contingency, or by any
means devices whatsoever, to receive.
become the depository of, record or register.
or forward or purpose, or agree or pretend
to forward, any money. both wager. thing
or consideration of value, to be let. gam
bled or wagered in any manner, or by any
means or device whatsoever, upon the re-
suit of any race. contest or contingency.
and any person violating any of the provis-
ions Of this section shall be deemed guilty
OF misdemeanor, and upon conviction
thereof shall be subject to fine OF not less
than 500 nor more than 81 900. one-half Of
said fine to go to the informer, and shall
be subject to Imprisonment In Jail for not
less than six months nor more than one
year. or be both fined and imprisoned. in
the discretion of the court"
Introduction Of Testimony.
"who is your first witness?' the magis-
trate asked
Mr.. Mohler,' said the states attorney.
The witness was then sworn and ques-
toned
us the pool room in question in Prince
George county?* he was asked.
1T is" was his emphatic response; 'ttlic
stone indicating the District line Is a few