11 P. 295 (Or. 1886), Wong v. City of Astoria

Citation:11 P. 295, 13 Or. 538
Opinion Judge:[13 Or. 541] THAYER, J.
Attorney:[13 Or. 539] C.J. Curtis, for appellant, Jennie Wong. [13 Or. 540] Geo. Noland, for respondent, City of Astoria.
Case Date:June 24, 1886
Court:Supreme Court of Oregon

Page 295

11 P. 295 (Or. 1886)

13 Or. 538




Supreme Court of Oregon

June 24, 1886

Appeal from Clatsop county.

[13 Or. 539] C.J. Curtis, for appellant, Jennie Wong.

[13 Or. 540] Geo. Noland, for respondent, City of Astoria.

[13 Or. 541] THAYER, J.

The appellant, a Chinawoman, was arrested by a police officer of the city of Astoria, upon a complaint by which she was accused of keeping, setting up, and assisting to keep, willfully and unlawfully, a bawdy-house, in violation of an ordinance of the city. Her attorney filed in her behalf a demurrer to the complaint, upon the grounds that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime against the city of Astoria; that the police court thereof had no jurisdiction of the crime charged, or of the person of the defendant; that the ordinance was unconstitutional and void, and was in conflict with the general laws of Oregon. The police court, before whom the prosecution was had, overruled the demurrer. Thereupon the appellant demanded a jury trial, but, refusing to deposit the jury fee as provided in the charter of the city, it was denied her, and she was put upon her trial, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of $50, and costs of prosecution, or, in default thereof, be imprisoned in the city jail for 20 days. Refusing to pay the fine, she was committed to the jail. After an ineffectual attempt to obtain a release from the imprisonment upon habeas corpus, she petitioned the [13 Or. 542] honorable circuit judge of said circuit court for a writ of review, which was duly allowed by him, but, upon the hearing thereof before the said judge, the said judgment of conviction was affirmed, and from which latter judgment this appeal is taken.

Page 296

The questions presented for the consideration of this court are the overruling of the demurrer by the police court, and the refusal to allow a jury trial. The appellant's counsel urged several points upon the appeal, which I will proceed to notice in their order.

The first one is that the complaint did not show, in the words of the ordinance, that the appellant "knowingly" did the act complained of. This point, I think, was fully answered by the respondent's counsel,--that the words "willfully" and "unlawfully" conveyed the same meaning. To "willfully" do an act implies that it was done by design,--done for a set purpose; and I think that...

To continue reading