Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1888-11-09


authority to do. but that the Commits
sioners met again in Il few days, and
that | would present to them his pro-
position and that suit would not bc
commenced until after such meeting
This offer was made to the board and
refused, and | was directed to begin
the action, which l did on May 90,
lSSS, just three years and twenty-nine
days after it had been outlawed. Mr.
Billings then complained that the sui.
had been commenced too late to be
heard at the June term of the court:
that an election would take place be
fore the next term (December), and
that it had been done to injure him in
this campaign. Knowing this to be
false, and in furtherance of personal
desire on my part to give him every
| opportunity to remove this "clOud
from his official life" at the earliest
possible date, requested him to file
his answer at once, setting forth his
alleged offsets against the county;
that would waive all time given BY
statute and the rules of court, file any
reply Immediately and stipulate that
the case might he heard at the June
term, ard a. this he replied, "I'll see
No attorney had appeared for him AZ
that time. Waiting till court met in
June, and realizing that he was taking
again approached him, and he inform
ed me that he could not get ready for
trial ut said teI.:. then made him
second proposition, with view of hay
ing the matter ended, in which
agreed to waive Il JUICY trial; that he
should file his answer as soon there
after rs his counsel could prepare it;
that should file II reply at once, and
that the case should be heard and de
termined out Of court (meaning af
Chambers) before the Judge at any
time, to meet the concurrence of the
court and Mr.. Billings and his coun-
sci, prior to the election, and to this he
said again, an see."
This was while the June term was
in session, and on my return from thu
East, the latter part of August, /
learned from the records that Judge
Henry, as his attorney, had filed de-
murrer in the case, pleading the stat
: ute of limitations. A few weeks since
l spoke to his attorney about the de
murrer, and at his suggestion, we filed
written briefs, instead of oral arg,t
. ments. AS there was no way to de-
feat this plea, the court sustained the
. demurrer and rendered judgment
against Thurston county for costs In
favor of William Billings.
Neither Francis Henry nor any othee
person, to my knowledge, ever offered
to withdraw that plea of the statute Of
limitation. never heard of such an
offer until read it in the circular en-
, closed in your letter. In my judgment,
: Thurston county will never plead the
statute OF limitations against any man
, and no person ever thought of so doing
, against Mr.. Billings in this suit. But
, MIR. Henry was not required to make
such II defense by demurrer. He
could have interposed the objection at
any stage Of the proceedings, and was
therefore fully protected against such
II plea by the county to his alleged Off
sets, and it would have been as fatal TO
the countv's cause of action as was the
demurrer.
e IfJudge Henry intended to say in hiS
e letter that an offer to withdraw such
i plea was made to me, either person
: ally or as Prosecuting Attorney, it is
Y wholly unwarranted and false. |
: should have been only too glad to have
# had it withdrawn. for l believe in the
/ business of the county's claim and in
= the worthlesrness of his. 1t was mean
d enough for Mr.. Billings to have plead
e the statute of limitation against II pec-
r pie (the county,, who have so continIt
d ously honored him for more than
y twenty years, but it was more unjust
d and meaner still, for him, after securing
y all its benefits, to seek to shift the re-
e sponsibility of such plea to an officer.
\