The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1911-09-28
FRAUD IN TRICK
ATTEMPTED FOR
BUCKET SHOPS
Moss Petition for Injunction
Denied by Circuit Court for
Sharp Practice =
Judge Van Fleet Holds Proceed
ings Abused Bench and
Wronged the City
Presents a Case of Effort to
Impose Jurisdiction, Says
. the Bench

r GDGE VAN. FLEET of the United.
States circuit court yesterday de-
e feated the efforts of H. A. Moss,
king Of the bucket shop. to use the
federal courts as instruments for the
en4asculation of the. .anti-bucket shop
ordinance passed by the board OF su-
. pervisors. March n.
TIE court denied Moss petition for
IAN Injunction to restrain the chief of
Z police and the mayor from raiding his
four places Of business in this city,
arresting his employees and clients for.
violations Of the ordinance and destroy
Ing his oface .paraphernalia.
The entire. matter was thrown out OF
the circuit co4irt and the temporary
restraining order issued last June
against the chief Of police was vacated.
.**Distrfct Attorney Fickert and his as
asistant, Ayfett Cotton Jr., who fought
Moss IN the state and circuit. courts, are.
preparing to institute proceedings
againsts a dozen brokerage firms sus-
:. :I.es'ted of Bucket shopping.
. Legal chicanery Scored 8
=. SIN discussing the evidence. introduced
Il ,thss hearings held last. June, the
court scored 4. S. Melsted and Edwin
Il j Williams. attorneys for. Moss. for.
p legal schieanery IN attempting to foist
!. Upon 1T jurisdiction over case. that
=: :prac ctically had been decided against
tdefn- in the superior court.
= Judge Van Fleet, who wrote the de-
:. .clsion. said that Moss could not go into
.:the. circuit court on the ground that
the city ordinance was unconstitutional,
discriminatory unreasonable and exist
ing in violation of his rights, as set
!. forth in the federal constitution, be-
cause the state and county courts had
. ==tiEe. right to. appeal from the Judgment
I; .efs.sthe lower courts to the state and
+ federal supreme courts.
Court Lacks Jurisdiction
=: The Judgment holds that the circuit
court as a. .tribupal for the protection
" of property rights, has no jurisdiction
soxer a case that Involves only the right
. OF a community to prosecute criminal
action against one of It's residents. On
this point Moss. attorneys. argued that
% the raiding of the places OF business of
Moss & Co. at ss9 Montgomery street.
ESQ Market street. 500 Bush street and
the. Russ Arcade building, ana the de-
struction of a private telegraph system
stllat connected the city offices with
ranches at ogden. Portland, Oakland,
fresno Sacramento. Long Beach, Los
angeles Redlands. Reno and San Diego.
constituted an invasion of. their clients
property rights.
. = The couSst said that. if the police tres
II ssyed On the rights Of Moss, he had
g recourse by suit for damages against
3. them as individuals AS this is purely
p. & matter Of criminal procedure, it must
be.proved that actual damage had been
sustained by Moss, and not that mere
Joss had heen suffered. As no actual
raid had been made, it could not be
presumed that the police intended to do
more than their duty and destroy any
or all of the office paraphernalia of the
qentral and branch bucket shops of the
Szoss concern.
Attempt at Imposition
IN concluding hts opinion on the
point of Jurisdiction. Judge Van Fleet
4a said that ito assume such a jurisdic-
tion. or to sustain a bill in equity to
restrain or relieve against proceedings
for the punishment OF offenses is to
invade the domain of the courts of
common law or of the administrative
and executive departments of the gov
{. ernment The case presents a purely
colorable and conclusive effort to i'm
pose jurisdiction upon this court
Judge.Van Fleet reviewed the history
2 of the case. pointing out that the only
purpose Moss had to serve in fling his
bill of equity in the federal court was
to escape the effect of ruling made bv
Judge Cabaniss Of the superior court
May 81. to the effect that the bucket
shop ordinance was valid and constitu-
tionaL
A petition was filed before Judge
CAbaniss May for the issuance of an
Injunction similar to that asked from
the federal court This petition was
verified by H A. Moss. and in it he set
forth. that Moss & Co. was California
corporduon- JuoSe ~dpdniss refused TO
issue the prayed for injunction May
81 and dismissed a temporary restrain
ing order issued when the petition was
fled.
Two days later Moss appeared before
Judge Cabaniss in person and asked
that the temporary restraining order be
continued until June g. as he intended
to close up his business in this city and
Rsid not wish to be interfered with while
doing so. The temporary restraining
order was kept in effect by Judge
cabaniss on this understanding. Moss
had letters OF Incorporation for Moss &
f.onffnued ON Page z, Column