The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-09-20
Highest of all in Leavening PowerU Govt Report Avg I7 1889
Roe! BsMdsg7
ABSOLUTELY PURE
ABSOLUTELY PURE

also VOID, Tor II also has the alternative clause.
so the warrant is no protection even 10 the
| officer who serves it.
Judge Burke cited several cases, showing that
| an officer is bound to know the law; aud when
| he serves a warrant which is void on It's lace,
| he is liable to the person arrested. Judge burke
| also cited decisions where an alternating clause
] in warrant rendered the document detective.
| The charge must be made conjunctiVely, not
! disjunctively.
| From these instances the counsel concluded
| that the complaint itself, coming from court
| OF limited jurisdiction, was void, and
! the warrant as well was void,
| and there no protection Whatever
afforded to the officer. On this arrest, an appli
cation from Mr.. Albertson for wit OF habeas
| corpus would have been granted, Tor the court
| would have held that the warrant did hot
| specify the charge. No person is bound to
submit to an unauthorized arrest undsr void
warrant or to an arrest BY an unauthorized
person under good warrant. An oh1"1f is
bound to have his warrant so that the person
upon whom it is charged can know the exact
charge which he is to face. SO the officer had
no more right to make an arrest On the warrant
than on a piece OF brown paper.
Judge Burke went OH that according to statute
the warrant issued by magistrate Tor felony
over which he has no jurisdiction, but for which
he makes an examination ana binds over to the
superior court-such a warrant is different from
the warrant issued by a magistrate Tor an Of
tense over which he has jurisdiction. JUS
tees warrant for petty oilense over which he
has jurisdiction recites that the person
must be Brought II him; but the
warrant for felony over which the magistrate
has no jurisdiction must direct that the prs
oner be brought before the magistrate who is
sues the warrant, or in case that ma .istrate be
not present, before some other magistrate OF the
county. In this the warrant was Tor
felony, and yet directed the return to Justice
Sharp, OF Tacoma, and 10 no one else. SO this
warrant was void on that account.
The third point made against the warrant for
K. B. Albertson that in criminal law mag
istrate's warrant has no effect outside of his
own county; if the officer wishes TO serve il in
another county he must get the Endorsement of
magistrate of the county. This provision was
intended to prevent a man from being taken
away to strange county where he had no
friends and could obtain no trial-uness mag
istrate in his own county approved OF the arrest
The law OF this state provides that d sheriff of
one county may make arrest in another with
out Endorsement OF magistrate only when the
man for whom the warrant is issued has fed
| from the county in which the warrant is issued.
The law also states that unless otherwise pro-
vided warrant must be directed TO the sheriff
OF the county in which the warrant is TO be
served. Furthermore, warrant TO be served
out OF the county must be directed to partic-
On these three points the state commended that
the warrant was void: First, there was an
alternative clause ana no offense was cited;
second, the magistrate issued a warrant not for
felony, but for an ofiense over which he had
| jurisdiction; and, third, the warrant had 10
| force outside of the county.
The state further held that Mckay was not an
| officer, and that he had received no appoint
| ment, and had taken no cath of office.
Judge Burke made another point that when
| the complaint is regular, the warrant perfect,
| and the officer duly appointed. yet if the officer
| is oppressive - abusive in making the arrest,
| the officer is fully liable for his behavior In
| this case there was a gross, fragrant and pre-
! meditated abuse OF process; the process was
mere pretext for getting Albcrtson. There
was not a particle OF justification for this
malicious abuse of process, for this shameless
| violation prostitution of the courses of JUS
! tice. III sullivan on horseback had led Albert
son with a rope around his neck on foot, the Of
| Tense would not have been greater than the
! thrus;ing of Albertson in hack and driving
| him out of the city.
Prosecuting Attorney John F. Miller then
! made an argument on legal points, urging that
| the warrant protection to the officer.
! The warrant was not good in another county
! unless the man for whom the warrant
! was issued had escaped from the
! county III which il was issued. The word
! escape does not mean absent, but escape implies
that the man has already been in legal custody.
| The phrase OF the statute escape or be found
| ont OF the county" Mr. Miller construed TO mean
"escape and be found out of the
county" The legislature at its last
session had settled the dispute by declaring that
| all processes issued out of court shall lie di-
rectei to the sheriff OF the county in which a
process is to be served. In this way the citizen
| OF this county is not deceived by the process,
but the citizen is supposed TO know the sheriff
OF his own county.
When the legal part of the states argument
had thus closed, the court was adjourned until
o'clock Monday night
sullivan appeared before the justice in the
morning TO answer the charge OF assault with a
deadly weapon. He said he had so much bust
ness to attend to that he had not time TO fight
the matter in the justice court. He therefore
waived examination and agreed TO stand his
chances in the superior court. He was placed
| under 81 600 bonds, his bondsmen being Chester
Thorn and A. NJ. Adams, both Tacoma cap
italists.