istrict of Columbia, weapon, or eae cath iene ess than $80" nor more:
be imprisoned not, bot question to what part of]
This was a single sentence and a
the sentence was modified by the clause, "With intent unlawfully use the same," which clause" wae Schuhl, by the the said clause, or who shall carry openly jarly such weapon", which clause was of off by the first and second lution were correct, be no point in using! emma between "weapon" and "with." If this scoond comma were omitted, counsel said he would agree that the clause, "with inten unlawfully to us> the same", refer ed only to the clause, "or who shall carry openly any such weapon." Bat. 4 comma had been placed by the Statute makers after the word "wen-pon," where it would not have been, placed, if it were intended that] the clause "with intent unlawfully to use the came" referred only the carrying openly of weapons.
'To express the meaning which the District Attorney contend comma after the word should be omitted, or, to make suc' meaning clearer jand last commas should be replaced by semicolons, then there could be no question but that the after the second comma ferred only to the open carrying of Bu: having set off both clauses with commas there could bbe mo question but that, by the ordinary rules of grammar, the clause, "with intent unlawfully fuse the same", modified both pre. [ceding clauses.
Mr. Schuhl agreed Int however, with Judge Pardy's interpretation of the various codes in As he had rested his defence without calling Maloney, he accopt-Jed the Judge's statement that the record must show defendant guilty carrying dangerous and conceal-fed weapons, but he requested thi Maloney should be allowed to mad 'a statement to the Court.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.