Lewiston evening teller. [volume] (Lewiston, Idaho) 1903-1911, 1906-08-29
CANNOT DECIDE
| he IS vAcRANT
|hr Have Knotty Problem
/ Refore Them in Case
Against Drum.

.-.,n3ss of considerable momen
!, !. decided in the police court tni.
.on bv a Jury of six men choser
! Try the case of L. A. Drum, charged
,uh vagraney.
-. erst important matter that will
!, Cor the Jury to consider is wheth-
not a man who is in constan,
..,,ovment at honorable work, who
4. good position and money in the
a.nk can under the law pc convicted
q yagrancy. -
" rhs next question which the MEM
~. 81 the Jury will have to decide IL
s.,her or not frequent visits to
'.,s.s Of ill-fame establish mans
N.,aonce there, and make him guilty
~as, the law of crime as viewed by
II city ordinances.
Is q salaried Man.
/, 4 Drum. a well-known barber IN
4. c,ty is charged with vagrancy.
r. mecific charge against him IL that
,hen the house of Freda Collins was
nided August "a he was captured by
~ police as he was just making his
ret away
evidence was brought into court this
afternoon to show that in the past he
h,a not slept in his own room more
than part Of the time, fellow barber
Il that time a friend Of the accused,
| hsd heard of an impending raid and
lad awakened Drum from his sleep
md he was at that time sleeping in
N house of Freda Collins.
Police officers and private citizens
we're sworn and placed on the stand.
! Their evidence in every case showed
/ that Drum was at least a very FREE
Quent visitor of Freda Collins house
and very friendly relations existed be-
tween him and the landlady Of the.
house.
The defense on the other hand was,
able to prove that since Drums resi-
dence in the city he had been in con-
slant employment as a barber. They
showed him to be good workman
and capable Of holding positions In the
better shops. 4
Mrs Eek who conducts a lodging
house In the city, testified that Drum
mas Dis room In her house and that he
aeeps In It most Of the time. Wit
nesses were also brought to show that
y nSes three meals a day In the
wehc ating houses regularly.
WIN VS. evidence before them the
~ VIII have to decide whether or
m els a vagrant.
y outcome Is being watched with
''Alefaoie interest. The police off,
n ise mat 1t is a test of their work.
10y are not able to convict him of
'auey they do not know where or
~ 'ne llne is to be drawn.
Who Will Be Judue?
4 ,m 'ne city then have to tolerate
-A'as q men who are companions
women Of ill-fame? II working is
~ m0'sc'lon to them, and having a
- somewhere else how are they TO
A., Wy Evil they have made such a
usht against?
y the other hand if man who ts
A's N the city eats and has his
! ~ : can be arrested and convicted
n.,s~cy Tor frequently house OF
49, ~. Wnere will the prosecution
!, ~ =, nov often may a man be seen
r,,, se places and still not be a var
n. "'h 1t then be in the hands of
nan 'ee TO say who shall and who
~ visit these houses? II visit
IA, houses or even staying all
y d, .''u'es hs vagrancy. who is to
totba 'se other than the police an
hmh IS man has stopped beyond the
m subject to arrest?
chx ~ = s being tried by Attorney
faaa,b,p ne city, and by George W
y eAoo.,. ior the defense. The work
.iprs s,hs ss Jury was slow and every
adss ! ~ - thoroughly questions. ms Both Both
sled WIN A. controversy Were well sat
iss ssttlemsa. NE Jury and it is believed
---..of ... o. this case this after