Reno Evening Gazette, July 15, 1931

1945-1947

Ray Wherrit and Austin K. Wright of San Luis Obispo, California set out in 1945 to build a $120,000 hotel-casino in the Crystal Bay Park subdivision on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. The two had purchased five lots there for that purpose.

In November, after hearing the details of the project, the Washoe County Commissioners approved it.

A number of property owners in the tract petitioned the commissioners to withdraw their approval. Instead, the authoritative body stood by its original decision to greenlight the resort.

The Move To Plan B

For whatever reasons, perhaps due to the protests, Wherrit, with Wright no longer as a partner, downscaled the proposed development to a casino-bar to be built on his lots that, according to the deed, could be used for such a commercial enterprise.

At the time, the town of Crystal Bay already contained some casinos, including the Ta-Neva-Ho and the Cal-Neva Lodge.

Wherrit went before the county commissioners a second time, in February 1946, for permission to proceed. Despite  major grumblings from some, construction was approved.

Again, some Crystal Bay Park residents were unhappy with the ruling, which galvanized them to abort the project.

Their efforts, including public objections to such an enterprise being built in their neighborhood, eventually succeeded in getting Wherrit to scrap his plan. At that point, he conveyed the land back to John J. Heffernan, from whom he’d purchased it.

Permanent Solution Sought

In February, about ten residents sued Heffernan and the Crystal Bay Corp. (CBC), the company that originally had subdivided the acreage. The purpose of the suit was to place development restrictions on Heffernan’s property and any unrestricted, CBC-owned land, thereby forever preventing the erection of any similar entities in the future.

The defendants fought back to keep their parcels restrictions free.

The Final Answer

After a delay of more than a year, a non-jury trial finally took place in May 1947 and lasted two days.

Judge A.J. Maestretti ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor. He determined the same limitations on development and use should apply to the entire subdivision and ordered that, accordingly, all property in Crystal Bay Park be built out only for residential purposes.

Sources

1946-1947

On the third Tuesday of April 1946, after work at the Southern Pacific Shop in Sparks, Nevada, Sam Lemel took the bus to Reno and went to Harolds Club where he played craps. He began by betting two half-dollars, which he lost. He left the casino and returned a bit later, only to lose four more half-dollars and a dime — ultimately down $3.10 (about $39 today).

From this point on, the version of events the self-described victim and the alleged perpetrator gave diverged.

What Lemel Relayed

Lemel asked for new dice, and Benjamin Shade, the dealer, provided two. When he asked for a selection from which he could choose, Shade wouldn’t accommodate him. Lemel informed the bouncer, Jack Filtzer, that Shade wasn’t following the state law on dice shooting. Filtzer, though, sided with his co-worker.

Lemel asked to speak to the casino’s co-owner Harold Smith about the game’s rules but was denied. So he sought out Smith’s office and knocked on the door, at which time two Reno policemen, Charlie Nichols and George Stone, arrested him and jailed him overnight. Lemel never swore, yelled or threatened to sue the police.

Harolds Club’s Perspective

Casino workers asserted Lemel was asked to stop playing craps because he loudly swore every time he lost. He demanded to see Smith and was told he couldn’t enter the money vault where Smith was. Lemel refused to leave the club and challenged Filtzer to toss him out or call the police. Filtzer did the latter, and when Nichols and Stone arrived, they arrested Lemel for disorderly conduct.

Drunk Tank Experience

Lemel sued Harolds Club and the Reno Police Department, claiming he was arrested falsely and detained “in a vile and loathsome cell with drunken, diseased and unclean people” for 18 hours (Nevada State Journal, Sept. 6, 1947). He stood most of the night, he said, to avoid catching germs. However, body lice and other bugs bit him, he claimed, resulting in a skin problem. At breakfast, because there weren’t enough dishes, in the form of pie plates and tomato cans, for everyone to use, he didn’t get any food. Worse, Lemel wasn’t allowed to communicate with his wife or attorney and wasn’t processed until the next morning. At that time, he pleaded guilty to vagrancy and was given a suspended sentence.

Lemel Seeks Recovery

Based on these allegations, he sought $25,000 (about $333,000 today) in damages.

The trial took place in August. Harolds Club’s counsel, M.A. Diskin, asked that the action be dismissed because Lemel had pleaded guilty upon arraignment, thereby nullifying any scenario in which he’d been arrested without grounds.

Lemel’s attorney, Ernest Brown, countered that his client hadn’t pleaded to disturbing the peace but, rather, vagrancy, which meant he could sue and potentially collect damages.

Attorney George Lohse, representing the two officers, stated that if police officers aren’t permitted to do what Stone and Nichols had done when they’d arrested Lemel, “then it would be useless to try to operate a police force in any city” (Nevada State Journal, Oct. 12, 1946). Lohse added that Lemel had been loud, boisterous, heated and argumentative in Harold’s Club after losing and yelled, “You can’t run your _______ game that way,” an admonition meant for Smith (Nevada State Journal, Oct. 12, 1946).

The Judge Pontificates

Judge A.J. Maestretti ruled that Harolds Club, Smith and Nichols had been justified in acting as they had, and he scolded Lemel for having brought the suit. He told him he should’ve been thankful the parties involved had “rendered him a kindness and the service of protection” (Nevada State Journal, Oct. 17, 1946) as the situation could’ve escalated radically had they not stopped Lemel when they had.

On the issue of whether he could sue for damages after pleading guilty, Maestretti sided with the defendants, reiterating that a guilty plea or conviction should make it impossible to later claim false arrest. Instead of having pleaded guilty, Lemel could’ve requested an attorney, the course an innocent man would’ve taken.

Despite the reprimand, Lemel persisted in pursuing a case. In mid-December, he petitioned for a new trial, but Maestretti refused to afford him one.

In February of the next year, 1947, he appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.

In September, oral arguments were presented to those jurists, who ultimately sided with the lower court, denying Lemel a new trial.

Sources