The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-12-13
LUCKY DAY FOR BOODLERs.
Kansas City Treasurer Acquitted-In-
dictment Against Bruner Invalid.

KANSAS CITY, Dec. 12-The jury in the case
against City Treasurer Peake, charged with en-
bezzing SO, 200 of the citys money, after having
been out twenty four hours, this afternoon re-
turned q verdict of not guilty.
NEVADA, o., Dec. l2-At the request or
Prosecuting Attorney Scott, Judge stratton has
ordered new grand jury impaneled to take
the place OF the one just discharged. asserting
that the latter did not do its duty in not ndict-
ing certain officials of the defunct Citizens
bank. which failed recently under peculiar cir
cumstances. The new jury returned true bills
against the president, vice president, cashier
and directors of the bank.
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. l2.-The state supreme
court, by five justices against two. decided to-
day that the present grand jury OF the city and
county of San Francisco is an illegal body. the
question came before the supreme court on the
application oil ex-Assemblyman Elwood Bruner
Tor a writ OF prohibition TO restrain Superior
Judge Wallace from proceeding against
him under the indictments found by
the grand jury charging Bruner with
maifeasanee in Office. Chief Justice Beatty
concurred in the opinion that the grand jury
had no legal powers, but thought writ of pro-
hibition not the proper way to bring the matter
before the supreme court The decision, which
Is very voluminous, was written by Justice Nc
Farland and was concurred In by Justices Ga
roote, Harrison and Patterson. justices De
Haven and sherpstein dissented.
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 12.-The grand Jury of
the city ana county OF San Francisco, which was
declared an illegal body by the supreme court of
California today, was impaneled by Presiding
Judge Wallace, of the superior court, on August
20. Nine of the nineteen members of the grand
jury, including the foreman, Barclay Hen
ley, were selected by an eiisor, Henry
t. Scott, appointed by Judge Wallace,
and the question of the legality of
the jury arises from discussion of the power
OF the court to appoint such elisor without first
having exhausted the regular venire OF jurors
or having afforded the sheriff an opportunity to
secure the needed jurors.
The proceedings OF the grand jury had been
OF great importance, 1t having had under in
vestigaton the scandals affecting the late legis-
lature and the conduct OF municipal
affairs under the present and prior
administrations. Considerable testimony
was taken in connection with the
Taylor case, in which a combination of mem
bers OF the last state legislature were charged
with receiving and dispensing money to affect
the passage of a number of bills. Steven T.
Gage and Richard Chute were summoned at diff
ferent times by the Jury as witnesses, but re-
fused to testify on the ground that the jury was
not legal body. They were cited to appear be-
fore Judge Wallace, and Chute was ordered
fined and imprisoned for contempt Superior
Judge Murphy, however, granted Chute u writ
of habeas corpus, thus releasing him permanent
ly, but when the supreme court, in q prior de-
cision, ruled that witnesses have no power to
decline to testify on the ground of alleged IL
legality of a grand jury, Chute and Gage ap-
pesred and testified.
Last month the grand jury indicted Christie
pher Buckley. local politician, who is now in
Canada; Samuel Rainey. superintendent
OF engines in the San Francisco fire depart
ment, and closely allied with Buckley;
and also found an indictment against ex-Assem-
blyman Elwood Bruner, of Sacramento, for an
offense lying, it was charged, partly in this
county.
Bruner Immediately applied to the supreme
court for writ of prohibition to restrain Judge
Wallace from taking further proceedings, claim
ing that the court exceeded its powers in ap-
pointing an eisor In granting the writ
today Justice Mcfarland, who delivered the
opinion OF the supreme court, holds that no dis
qualification of any kind was made against the
sheriff by affidavit or otherwise and that the
sheriff was discarded anu an elisor appointed
simply because the court chose to do so. 1t was
held that the court was without power to APP
point an elisor under the circumstances, aud
had exceeded its jurisdiction.