, 1878-01-04
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
ayAnrcE LEADS TO CORRUPTION.


Tn our issue of the 14th inst, we
made a brief statement concerning
trial before Justice Learned of soIne
Young men from Port Discovery,
upon the complaint Of one Pruss,
making three distinct charges against
them, viz, of arson, riot and unlaw'
ful trespass. We spoke Of the pros.
ecution as psrtaking more Of the
character of malice than of desire
to subserve the ends Of justice. This
may have been understood by the
public as referring to the complain
ant, or his attorney; most persons,
however, would suppose it to mean
the former. ID. w. Smith, Esq, oc.
cupying the unenviable position Of
attorney for the prosecution, after
trying on the cap and concluding
that it fitted him much better than it
would his client, is determined to
wear it altogether. Acting upon
originally conceived premises, he
published letter claiming that our
statement was entirely one-sided, un-
fair, etc., that we we're trying to
right wrong by wronging some one
else; and with the air of one whose
ideas never rise higher than sn asso-
cation with bribery, asks if We were
not PAID for our services. AS he
seems to earnestly desire ventilation
of this matter, we have taken pains
to institute brief investigation, pre-.
paratory to letting in alittle light on
the affair, particularly the actions of
Mr.. Smith in regard to it.
First, we must notice Smiths de.
termination to revenge himself upon
Mr.. Wood. of Port Discovery, and
to crafty previous spite at that
gentleman. Becoming enraged at
our failure to mention Mr.. Woods
name in connection with the affair,
he did so himself, and proclaimed
his own malice by spitefully calling
attention to our course, after Mr..
Wood had undergone trial and
been adjudged entirely innocent.
Mr.. Smiths last resort, in the pub
lished letter, was doubtless based
upon the supposition that it would at
least be degrading to man in Mr..
Woods position to get his name even
in print in connection with a felon-
zoos crime, though he was not guilty
Of it. The fact of being arrested
upon charge of arson was humili-
ating enough to him to crafty an
ordinarily malicious spirit, without
hawking it around through the coun
try and prating about the "evidence
produced" thus trying to get up the
impression that his innocence rested
upon doubtful proof.
Amy person who will examine the
criminal code of 1878, for our Terri
tory, and then look into the facts in
connection with this case can hardly
fail of arriving at the conclusion that
the real criminal, in the eyes Of the
law stood at the bar asattorney. Sec.
100. p. 2O4, of said code, defines an
attempt to excite quarrels or lawsuits
among the citizens Of this Territory,
as being crime. Sec. 9S, p. 203
also defines a malicious attempt,
without probable cause, to cause an
indictment TO be found or other
prosecution for any crime or misde-
meanor, to be commenced against any
person, such person being innocent,
to be punishable crime. Sec. So,
p. 2O1 plainly says that any person
who shall obstruct the execution of
any legal process is a criminal. Sec.
l23, p. 208, reads as follows:
II any person having knowledge OF the
commission Of any crime shall take any
money, gratulty, reward, or any engage
ment therefor, upon an agreement or un-
derstanding express or implied to COM
pound or conceal such crime, or not to
prosecute therefor, he shall, Oh conVic-
tion thereof, be imprisoned In the county
Jail any length OF time not exceeding one
year, or be fined In any sum not exceeding
one thousand dollars.
Now let US see how Mr.. Smiths ac-