Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1910-11-11
DEFENSE LOSES
IN COKE CASE
FURNISHING on MONEY ny
PLAINTIFFS No EXCUSE
VIOLATION IS IN SALE
=. y. Nycrs II Fined S25--llc PAY p,
--Po ioemnn HAD Given Witness
Money 10 bny Cocaine.

The fact that a policeman had
given H. g, Snake the 20 cents. with
which he purchased a small hON ul
cocaine from $. Il. Ayers clerk IN
an East First street drug store, did
not excuse Ayers as defendant In tho
case from having fine ussrssc
against him In Judge Chaunccy llous
toms court yesterday morning Az
ers escaped with the lcnicnt tinc col
S25,
In rendering his opinion M the case
b which has been before him for about
. two weeks Judge Houston holds that
because the plaintiffs witness had
, given the money By a policeman doe
, not excuse the defendant iu any man
+ ncr from violation Of the city anG
other laws covering the Illegal sale
, of cocaine Judge Houston cites that
there had been no attempt made on
, the part Of thc policeman 10 get IN,
defendant to violate the law, ana that
, he was not told to procure the cO-
cainc from any particular person or
place; hut rather that the officer was
attempting 10 ascertain who If any
one, was violating the law
Before rendering his opinion. Judge
Houston doyoG thoroughly into the
situation and took his time in dig
ging up a score or more OF the Opin-
ions Of other courts, citins decision
after decision to sustain his position
II win be noticed that In one case
cited the article purchased was beer.
In that case the final court held that
the defendant could not complain he
cause the money with which the hcv-
erage was purchased was furnished
Ihy the city to person to enable him
10 buy II In order to detect viola
ton OF law nasmuch as tho beer was
willingly sold and the offensc lay in
the selling.
And Yet there are, perhaps, many
in Tulsa who will still maintain that
the prohibitory law caunOu be en-
forced
Ayers paid his fine Of S2i after
' IuGge Houston rendered his opinion
yesterday morning The defendant
voluntarily stated that he would never
again he guilty Of further violation
la regard to the sale of cocaine, lie
also fully understood that II convict
p ed on the same charge again the court
would not be lenient with him
The sale of cocaine in Tulsa, ac-
cOrdins to the police and officers Of
the law, has been on an increase for
some time. Several friends for the
drug are almost weekly in the hands
Of the police and strenuous efforts
are to be made to check the practice
Of unlawful selling
The full opinion of Judge Houston
Is as follows:
! Opinion of Court-Clty of Tulsa VS..
S. +. Ayers
The defendant is charged with un-
lawfully selling cocaine to one II .
g, Snake in violation of Ordinance
No. 7S0.
The evidence is substantially as fol-
lows: to-wit one n. S Snake tes-
titled that he went into the drug store
in the city of Tulsa, where defendant
clerks. and called for 25cts worth Of
cocaine; that the defendant furnish
ed him with box containing a sub
stance which looked to him like co.
caine and he paid him 25cts for the
same. The said Snake further testi-
fled that he had not tasted the con-
tents of the box so procured from the
defendant, but that he could tcil by
tasting 1t whether 1t was cocaine or
not. Witness also testified that he
! had several years experience in a
drug store and had put up prescrip-
tiOnS and had been a habitual user
Of cocaine for about six years, and
after being permitted by the court
tasted the contents of said box, testi-
fled positively that II was cocaine
The said witness also testified that
he had no cocaine upon his person
when he went in to said drug store
and also testified that the officer
"nabbed" him when he came out Of
lha hAy a "A
ing cocaine upon his person. The
witness also identified the box con-
tanning the cocaine by certain marks
upon same and the possession of said
box was traced showing the box con-
tanning the cocaine produced in court
TO be the one found upon the person
of said witness, Snake, when arrested
by the officer. Policemen Altenberk
and Cooper testified to searching the
person of the witness. Snake, when he
came out of the said drug store and
to finding the box and contents upon
his person and identified the box as
the one taken from the said Snake
when they searched him as he came
ont of the said drug store The Off
Ger also testified that after finding
the said box upon the said witness
that witness went into the said drug
store with the officer and pointed the
defendant out as the party who sold
MIN the cocaine. The said box and
contents were produced AS evidence
In the case and examined by the
court, The defendants attorney In
cross examination of the witness,
Snake, ascertained from him that n
policeman gave the 25 cents with
which he purchased the coQpine, but
there was no testimony TO show that
the policeman ever told the witness
TO purchase any cocaine from the de-
fendant, S. f. Ayers, and no evil
dence to show that the policeman
was attempting to procure the defend
ant to violate the law. but II it
proves anything, shows that the Of
ficer was attempting TO ascertain
who, If anyone, was violating the law.
Now as to the law: The defense,
by demurring to the evidence, admits
the facts proven, but claims the de-
fendant should be discharged for the
reason that the policeman, as they
claim, gave the money to the witness
with which he purchased the box Of
cocaine and, as claimed by the de-
fendants attorney instructed the wit
ness to go out over town and see II
he could buy cocaine. The defend
ants attorney cites tho following All
thorities to support his contention:
Wilcox Va. the People. II Colo, 1909;
People VS.. Braisted, IL Colo, 553;
Ford VS.. City OF Denver, 5lst Pac.,
1919.