Amador ledger. (Jackson, Amador County, Calif.) 1875-19??, 1906-10-19


had a remedy by habeas corpus
What of it? Does that excuse excess
of authority on the part of an officer?
Lester was not kicking. lie was
chuckling over his good fortune in
being run into Amador county to get
term of two years for crime of great
eonrmity in the eyes of all cattlemen
-pamely,. 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 the 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 correspon-
dent, A. Mar on, we pass by in silence.
But to set at rest all insinuations 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 Califor-
MIA, Plaintiff, VS.. William b. Lester,
Defendant.
Action, felony, to wit, grand lar
ceny, G. T. Vicini, attorney for PLAIN
tiff, state of California, county OF
Amador, s. Personally appeared
before me on this 2Itb day of Septem
Der, 1900, U. s. Gregory of Township
No One. in the county of Amador.
state of California, who first being
duly sworn, on oath, opposes, COM
plains, and says, the said William II.
Lester, of the county of FL Dorado,
fnkA % NAlt l4
September A. ID. 1900, at Shake Ridge,
i'll the county of Amador, state atore
said, committed the crime of felony,
| William II. Lester, at the time and
place aforesaid, feloniousy 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
a. lien, deceased, and a warrant OF
arrest having been duly issued Oh
said oath day of Septem Der, 1900.
September %, 1900, said defendant,
William h. Lester, having been duly
arrested thereon, and brought before
this court by T. Kelley, constable,
and after being informed of all his
rights, was duly arraigned, said his
true name was William b. Lester,
and ready for examination. G. P.
Vicini, district attorney, appeared on
the part of the people, The defendant
did not desire an attorney, and did
cot 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 the witness.
People rest. The court asked the
defendant if he has, any witness 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 submitted
to the court without Argument. tap
pearing to me that the otfense in the
within disposition mentioned, felony,
to wit, grand larceny, has been com
mitted, and that there Is sufficient
cause TO believe the within named
William Il. Lester guilty thereof, |
order that he be held to answer to the
same, and that he be admitted to bail
in the sum of one thousand dollars,
and is committed to the sheriff OF the
county of Amador, until he gives
such bail.
Dated this 18th day of September,
1900.
II. GOLDNER,
Justice of the peace in and for the
said township.
] hereby certify that the within is a
tue copy of my docket.
Now, about the show licenses,
which he says were collected after
Oct. /, and will be reported IN the
next quarterly statement. Section 9
of the license ordinance reads:
Whenever the rate of license tax by
this ordinance imposed is fixed at
sum for quarter of year, OF any
other period, the LICENSE tax for the
whole of such quarter of a year, or
other period, must be paid in ADVANCE,
Another part of the ordinance fixes
the license tor shows as follows:
For travelling minstrels, shows,
travelling dramatric or Theatrical per-
formaces >. 81. 30 per day, or $40
per week,
How comes 1t that this pay in ad-
vance provision-so essential to the
vitality of the ordinance-is no longer
regarded as obligatory. The license
tax that should have been collected
from the MorEell company alone
before Oct. l, amounted to $40 at the
weekly rate, and considerably more
at the day rate. And yet not 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? 10 give the same ratio OF
concession to resident business men,
liquor licenses would have to be col
lected yearly, after each individual
had run up bill of 500 due the
county. OF course after this ventila-
ton, 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 reasons why revenue from licenses
has increased. 1t is due to increase
of business houses and businesses
subject to license. Citizens will con-
clude that where such Iooseness pre-
walls as herein indicated, the full
ness of time has come to make a
change.
EnJoymenSs.
/ have told you of the Spaniard who
always put on his spectacles when
about to eat cherries that they might