The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-09-22
THE TRIAL OF M'KAY.
Jury to Return Sealed Verdict
in kidnapping Case.
LAWYERS HAVE THEIR SAY.
Authority OF Isaac Evans rs an Omcer
Questioned, and Liability OF the
Defendant Debated.


TENDER 10. The jury went out at about ii
O'clock and sealed verdict win be opened this
morning at g. The room as usual, was crowded
with deeply interested spectators.
On Saturday the evidence was all
taken, and the state presented part
night Judge Burke gave the opening address
to the Jury for the state. He said that as the
case was presented from the witness stand
there was little or no attempt to deny the charge
of assault and battery upon r. b. Albertson
The proof was as clear and conclusive as posi-
bic upon that point. The defense had not at
tempted to deny the act charged, but rather had
tried to justify the act. This justification had
been that Evans was a deputy sheriff OF Pierce
county, regularly appointed, and that he had
regular warrant.
To this plea Judge Burke replied that Evans
was not deputy sheriff and knew he wasn't;
he had no good warrant and knew he hadn't.
Furthermore, were he an officer and had he had
a valid warrant, he had right to abuse ms
power and make his authority a cover for wrong
doing
Eyans' commission was not issued by the
present sheriff of Pierce county but by one who
took Office January T. The sheriff cannot appoint
deputies whose terms continue beyond his own
term; for a deputy is ike limb OF a tree, which
fails when the tree falls Then could Mckay,
who was Evans bully and hired thug, justify
for doing under Evans direction that for which
Evans could not justify himself? The idea that
the aid was justified, Judge Burke combatted by
reading decision to the effect that when an
officer is liable his aids are liable.
The counsel for the state further urged that
the warrant was invalid because there was All
alternative clause, saving that Albertson re-
ceiyed stolen goods, or helped to conceal them.
The warrant did not, as the law directs, contain
the charge, but contained an alternative.
Another point was tn It under the Washington
code warrant for felony, issued from justice
court must direct that the prisoner be
be not present, to some other magistrate.
This is because the justice has not jurisdiction
over felony The warrant in question, which
was for felony, merely directed that the pris-
ernor be returned To the justice, Harry Sharpe.
Also, the warrant for X. Il. Albertson, issued
September S, was not delivered by the justice
10 the sheriff of Pierce county or to any officer.
but to 81. c. Sullivan,
not recognized by the law, man
who, from the testimony, seemed to be
superior TO the law When Sullivan gave the
warrant to Evans, the latter came TO Seattle and
spent nearly two days without serving it. Was
that the conduct of all officer doing his duty?
Was he not prostituting his office for private OPP
preston? When the afternoon of September 10
came, Evans watched for two hours
the door of the Halter block where
AlbertSon had his office. Finally AIbertson was
arrested on the street while going to his dinner
Albertson wanted TO go to his Office aud arrange
for trial - the right of every Amer
lean citizen. Sullivan, Evans and Mckay in
sisted that Albertson get into the
hack. He agreed to do so if they would take
him to his Office aud they consented. When
once they were in the hack, the driver started
down beyond the south limit of the city The
evident intention was TO kidnap and conceal
Albertson as Cohoon had been concealed The
tN-
act.
But Sullivan, who laid this PLAN made mis-
take in procedure. Had Abertson been a
stranger in Seattle and without friends, he
would have been kidnapped as men are in the
heart of Russia. Had the three thugs done this
act without pretense of thing under law, the
case would not have been so bad, but they pre-
tended TO be coaked by law. they
took thu livery of heaven to serve the
devil. highwayman could commit
no greater outrage in the rights
OF the community. Should not such an
act on the part of NJ. C. Sullivan be challenged?
Should he defy the law? This case against Me-
Kay was the first challenge to check the villain
sullivan in his lawlessness
Had Evans desired TO arrest Albertson, Albert
son could have been found at any time. Had
Evans intended to make legal ar
rest, would he have called in to
aid him such ruiians Sullivan
and Mckay? Would he not have applied to the
sheriff of King comfy for aid if he feared Al
bertson would resist arrest? No; Evans WAS
not an officer, and he knew he wasn't: aud he
hadn't an honest writ, and he knew he hadn't
What could have been the objection TO letting
Alhertson give bail. or 10 notify his friends?
Evans confessed that he acted under direction
OF Sullivan An officer who aknowiedred that
he the tool and cats-paw of such a ruff
fan sullivan was a disgrace to
the state, disgrace TO his official
position. The lesson should be taught that
there were legal and orderly methods q! enforc-
ing the law, and that thugs who DEFY the law
were not to be called in under cloak of law to
Cypress honest citizens
when Judge Burke had thus opened the case.
Judge Junius Rochester took up the law points
for the defense He argued that Evans CON-
mission though issued before the present term of
sheriff James Price, OF Pielce county, began was
practically good. because Price had repeatedly
recognized Evans as "a deputy. As for the right
10 serve warrant in another county several
cases were cited showing that in other states
officers NAV so beyond their county limits to
serve warrants. The statute declared that
processes should be directed To the sheriff
oi the county where the defendant IS
found, unless otherwise ordered By law An
other section OF the statute said that Il sheriif
might go into another county for his man, when
the latter escaped or was absent from the
comfy.
Judge Rochester declared that the case had
been made great newspaper sensation The
fact was THAI Albert,on was arrested and gave
himself mp 70 officer. After that
Albcrtson began to fuss ana have trouble
with tho officer But there was M
dnsring, aud the crowd that rescued tho
young men from the officer were simply mob
violating the law.
Mckay was called upon by the deputy shcrit q
10 assist in the arrest, every citizen was likely
tn be called upon. Mr.. Abertsou received the
treatment accorded any other man against
whom warrant is Issued. The delay in serv-
ing the warrant WAS not unreasonable, aud no one
had any malice AGAINST Mr Albertscn or
hr. Bailey. The officers came here TO m k
thee arrest, but IL WAS delicate matter, for the
principals had not yet been found. As sullivan
was hunting the iugttyes, II WAS proper that
the arrest should not be made until sullivan
gave the word
Judge Rochester rjiiCuled the iieS that Kid.
mapping was intended or had been comm. tied
fNauS was simply acting as a deputy sheriff.
and called Mckay in 10 help him. Mckav.
uaaer such circumstances, was compelled by
law - assist
;. T. Ronald followed for the defense. He
denied that Mckay was bound 10 take cocntr.
aHcc oi the commission OF the officer Evans.
Evans was setting in good faith, and that was
enoagh- The oficer was not bound 10 know
the technical defects of Il warrant or @! the
complaint h}ed IN the court Evans received
the warrant from properly constituted au,h1ri-
ties. Certainly man called upon u hslo nm
officer cannot Inspect the warrsnt There
Is no time for delay AMI examination
Mr., Ronald cited several decisions - show that
even though officer might bx liable for max
ing an Illegal arrest stlil the citizens whom he
called in and who recognized his oficla, de