Arizona republican., 1914-09-21
Justice Stopped Midway

Now and then decision in inferior court like the peace of God, "passeth understanding" There the similitude ends, for the the Lord though often mysterious, always wise
 We have in mind the of Smith last Satur- day in police court from the consideration of which We will dismiss the difference between Smith, complaining witness and the Cooks and Walters Union. Smith complained that certain persons to- wit: Babcock and one Marriott, had annoyed him by carrying banners in front of his place. the said banners bearing legends derogatory to the character of the complaining witness and reflecting upon his manner of conducting the business of sat isfying the appetites of the populace The banners presumably intended to discourage traffic be- tween the popuIace and Smith At any 1ate Smith thought and so averred
 The intent of the banner-bearers was not brought question. No attempt seems to have been made in court to arrive that The only thing done have been to inquire into the effect of the banner display upon the days busi- ness, The court and the attorney for the defense demanded in open court that Smith make an ac- counting, though he had not been previously reg ularly notified that such an accounting would be demanded.
 Smith could not say precisely to what extent, if at al he had been deprived of patronage by the conduct of the defendants He sure that some regular patrons whom on the spur of the moment he could not name. had been deterred from patron izing him that day But he forced admit under questioning that various sympathetic persons who had not previously patronized him, attracted by the demonstration in front of his gastronomc emporium, had entered it, with the result that all records of daily receipts had been broken. He had taken in SPA more than he had received in any vious day. It thereupon adjudged that Smith had not been interfered with, and the against Babcock and Marriott dismissed.
 We will not stop discuss whether the court regarded Smith the people of Phoenix" or whether the rights of the public, necessarily party to criminal action, adjudicated in this de- cision We chiefly interested the fortunes of Babcock and Marriott, who do not think oeved full justice under the decision. What about their share of the $24 which Smith unblushingy admitted had gone into his till chiefly by reason of their activities? Is Smith to be left alone to enjoy ilgotten gains which he confesses di rectly traceable the energetic advertising given him by these defendants, who think, have fered grievous wrong the hands of the court?
 The may however, have held the view that they were regularly licensed advertisers and that as evidence had been adduced show ing that there had been any contract between them and Smith for the boosting of his business, they entitled to reward But such view is in contravention of the biblical declaration that the laborer is worthy of his hire.
 Or, the court may have had in mind Mis- souri precedent In Andrew county, in the north part the state, whose citizens always in sst upon ocular demonstration, citizen was shot in d street affray by neighbor. The bullet. of large caibre struck the citizen full in the fore head penetrating the skull. He fell and was be- lieved to be dead, but he restored to sciousness and ultimately vigorous health than he had enj6yed in many years. The bullet had opened a catarrh of which the wounded man had long been a sufferer The catarrh removed with the bullet. What happened to the shooter we do not know. but do know that if he presented any bill for surgical attendance upon his victim, though it resulted in his it was not allowed