Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1874-10-24

:. .. :. :. " pair of pants......... s SO
81 two - socks. 90
! one bedtick. ...... 2 so
one pair blankets, dis
allowedD ....................... - 90
Fees in Justice Court:
Serving warrant. .............. ...... 90
Copy of do ............... ...... SO
Boat hire with two men employed in
Mileage a.f 10 miles at 20 cents per mile ~
tdi allowetD. ... ........ ........ 90
Fees in District Court. ................ 8 SO
s155 so
REHABILITATION
VIM: II. Collins. ........... ...........S1H 90
VIM. Thornton. Observation-Disclosures. 155 30
s456 90
1 allow the amount of $414 90 against Kit
sap county for the reasons following:
list, The prisoners were indicted for grand
larceny. but were convicted of petit lar
ceny. Public offenses are of two kinds, fell
onies and misdeIneanors \ felony is an of
| Tense upon conviction of which the punish
ment is imprisonment in the Penitentiary.
Imprisonment IN the .pcnitentiary is the
criterion that distinguishes felony from a
misdemeanOr-that is, such punishment do
mandcd by law against an offense makes it
| felony.
der the rule stated above, petit larcenya mis-
demcanOr.
I'd, The Territory pays the expenses of
prosecution and maintainance afterwards,
only when the conviction is for felony.
Statues of 1869, sec. 4, page 4l9.
AS there was no conviction for felony in
this case, the Territory cannot be called upon
to pay the costs of prosecution or Of main-
tainance. The question then is, Who is liza
BILE? 1t must be either the complainant
Pierce county or Kitsap county. The COM
was conviction on his complaint, although
not of as high grade of crime as was COM
planned of. II the complainant is not respon-
sible, it must be either Pierce or ktsap coun-
| ties.
list, The complaint and the warrant upon
which the arrest was made, both aver that
the larceny was committed at Port Madison
in Kitsap county, but that the thieves es-
capped into Pierce county with the stolen
goods and were there arrested, upon pur-
suit by the owner, upon complaint made III
ws sree within e ,ne at Ss
time the complaint was made.
Section 307, p. 263 Statues of 1862 provides
| that "all persons in custody charged with
| the commission of crime within the jurlSdc-
ton of the District court, and all persons who
may be placed in custody or committed to
the District Court shalt in me first instance De Il
charge upon the county ,rhe,e they tetong," &c.
Again, Section $40, p. 2Gi, stat. 1869, pro-
vides that all fines and forfeitu,es shall be-
long to the counties from which the defend
| ants come" DC
am of the opinion that under a fair con-
structon of these statuary provisions, and
! the facts of this case that the defendants
belonged to Kitsap county, and that If there
have been entitled to it, and hence that she
ought to pay the accompanying bill.
There certainly could not have been any
and arrest lad been made in Kitsap county
Can it make any difference i'm the justice or
principle, because the thief fled into another
provided that he may be arrested and tried
wherever found. Without this provision he
could have been arrested but could not have
been tried in Pierce county. The enlarge
mcnt of the place of trial cannot affect the
rights or duties of the counties in which the
larceny was at first committed. The thieves
still belong where they original, did the
certify. then. that have carefully exam
ined the accompanying account: that find it
correct except MS to the items l have disal-
lowed, and allow il i'm the sum of four hnnd
red and fourteen dollars as against Kitsap
| county
Done at Chambers, at the city of Seattle,
WV ~ Judge Sd Judicial District, w. r.
This bill is allowed against the
county, because it cannot be charged
against the Territory, and yet Carson
got $500 from the Territory on the
Judges certificate in the same case.
The Commissioners of Kitsap county
again refused to pay this bill. Carson
then got up the following affidavit:
TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON, GO
County of Pierce.
To Hon. O. Jacobs, Chief Justice Of Washington
Territory and Judge Of 81 Judicial District, w.
Your afflant Isaac Carson, respectfully re-
That at a regular term of the District Court
holding terms for Pierce County, Washington
Territory, on the sixth day Of November, A. ID;
Lewis Howard were duly convicted of petit
larceny and sentenced to the county JAIL.
That at said time affiant was the duly cleo
ted and qualified Sheriff of Pierce county.
That at the time of conviction of said crime,
and on the said sixth day of November. A, d.
1869, said VIM: Thornton: WIN: II: =, Collins lin $
and Lewis Howard were residents OF kitsap
That afiiant presented a bill for boarding
and safe keeping of said prisoners. duly certi,
fled to be correct and allowed against said
Commissioners Of Kitsap county;
| That the Commissioners of said county
duly rejected said bill;
Wherefore your afiiant prays for an order
compelling said Commissioners to appear be-
fore your Honor on the 7th day ofApril. 1872. to
show cause why they should not pay said
bill and for such other and further relief as
You atfiant alleges that he has no other
plain and adequate remedy.
TERRrroRy OF WASHINGTON, g..
County of Pierce. '''
I. Carson, being duly sworn, says that he
has read the foregoing affidavit. and believes
the same to be true. I. CARSON.
| Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 5th
day of February, 1879 JOHN LEARY:
Notary Public.
On this affidavit, Judge Jacobs issued
the following order and writ:
In consideration of the premises, it is here
| by ordered that writ Of mandate issued by
| the Clerk of the District Court of the 3d Judi
cal District, w. T.. for the county Pierce in
missioners for the county of Kitsay, W. T., to
show cause why they should not allow and
pay the bill mentioned in the accompanying
peremptory mandate should not issue against