Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1886-10-26
QUERIES
ADDRESSED TO PROSECUTING AT.
TORNEY N. NJ. RUICK.
A Damnable Record Of Oyercharges
Against the County Since His Access.
SiOn to Office.

sion to Office.
The office of District Attorney is
the most powerful one in the county.
1t is one in which great care and dis.
cletion must be exercised in order to
prevent wasteful extravaganza.
In short, the District Attorney should
be like an honest, faithful watch doc
of the Treasury.
The tru'h is. the present District
Attorney has been like blood hound
grasping With lis greedy paw every
dollar that came in sight, whether
right or wrong.
To give our readers correct data
from which to draw conclusion, we
give an extract from the law relative
to fees of District Attorney:
Section 8, page 253, laws of 1881,
says: "The District Attorney shall re-
ceive for compensation for every
prosecution for felony upon plea
of not guilty, where the punishment
may be death, one hundred dollars;
for every prosecution for felony
upon plea Of not guilty, where the
punishment is imprisonment in the
Territorial prison, fifty dollars; *
for every prosecution for felony
or mlsdemeanor where the defendant
PLEADS GUILTY, or where the action
is determined upon an issue Of law,
oNE-HALF the foregoing fees"
A prosecution means the bringing
of an alleged offender to Justice
and punishment. If the District At
torney TRIES case he is entitled to a
full fee. If he moves a dismissal OF
case without trial "a mere legal
motion-he is entitled under the law
to only one-half Of the full fee.
If defendant pleads guilty the
District Attorney is only entitled tc
one half the full fee. Now, citizens
of Alturas, read the following state
ment of facts:
At the June term of the District
Court, 1854, one George H. Blles was
tried and convicted of felony. Thi.
was in the administration prior to the
present one, and the former Distrlc
Attorney received the pay therefor
$50. The case was NEVER tried again
The records show that in June, 1885
Ruick demanded and received from
Alturas county, as per this item in hi.
bill:
"June, 1885, People VS. George H
Bles-TAKEN TO THE PENITEN
TIARY, $50"
/ Is this prosecution? 1t might
properly be called steal from the
taxpayers,
Again, Immediately following the
above charge, appears the following
"June, 1885, People VS.. All Sin-De.
PENDANT ORDERED to penitentiary
800"
Great Scott! Ruick, if YOU HAI
TAKEN All Sin there where would the
county be?
All Sin never was tried but once
and then he was convicted by THE
former District Attorney, who received
his fee for the same.
In October, 1888, an indictment
was found against Mr.. Fox, another
Williams, and one Heller. The wit
nesses could not be found at time fo
trial, and the case was continued from
term to term until June, 1885, and a
that term Ruick dismissed the case
and for the dismissal charges thu
county of Alturas and receives $3.50
The dismissal was mere legal pro
ceeding, not trial, and at the out
side $75 was all he was entitled to re
ceive.
For moving dismissal in the cas-
of Thomas Kelly, Ruick charged ant
received s100-and this for merel,
suggesting to the Court the death 0
said Kelly. The law, at best, onl,
allowed $50. 1t was murder case