view raw text
DETAILS OF CALIFORNIA TEST CASE. Sari Francisco, Cal., August 30. In presenting Arguments before the District Court of Appeals re-ix-ntly in support" of an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the case of Frank OSliea, accused pf having violated the anti-betting law at the Ingle-slde Coursing Park, attorneys Carroll Cook and Henry Ach attacked the validity of the enactment of the recent legislature, commonly known as the Walker-Otis law. OShea was arrested on a warrant based on a violation of the penal code. Through his attorneys be made three distinct contentions in his attack uptin the validity of the anti-betting law. OlSheas first contention is that by reason of the complex form of the section of the code the section being one complex sentence of over thirty lines it is unintelligible, and of such phraseology as to make it Impossible to determine what particular acts are necessary to be grouped together to constitute the crime intended by the section to be denounced. His second contention is that the provision, when read itt connection with other provisions of the chapter of the code in which it is found, are so unreasonable as to be void. His third contention is that the penalty affixed to the section of the code Is absolutely void. Uin this last contention his attorneys based the greater part- of their arguments. They argued that the penalty allixed by the legislature attempts to confer upon the courts .functions that are not judicial mid legislative powers that cannot be conferred upon the courts. In case of conviction, according to the attorneys, the statute thdt is being attacked gives the Judge the power to fix the penalty at Imprisonment in the county jail, making it a misdemeanor. Or in the state prison, making it a felony, if the court so desires. , Judge Cook cited the imaginary case of two partners engaged in business. Neither attended to the actual transaction of the details, but employed a clerk or agent. This clerk or agent permitted alleged violations of the law to be carried on, and the two partners were arrested. One, if convicted, is sentenced by the judge to a term in the county jail, branding him merely as a culprit. The other, however, if the judge .so desires, is sentenced to a term in the penitentiary, making him a felon, although both are guilty of the same offense. .Arguments in opposition to the defendants con teiitlons were submitted by representatives of the attorney-general and district attorneys oliice. At the conclusion of the arguments both sides were ordered by the court to submit briefs, the prosecution being granted five days in which to prepare ils case and the attorneys for OShea being granted ten days in which to answer.
