The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-03-03
STATE SUPREME COURT.
uestions Relative TO Ri.
parian Rirhfs anttI.a

A As1GntS Settled.
cou-, sar,. A. march 2-ispecial. 1.-The supreme
county superior court in the case OF the slim
on MIL company, respondent, VS.. tho Harbor
Ao COMMISSIONER, appellants. The court
Posseo over the points involved in this
sass which are identical with those be-
, 9lo me court in the case of tho
..sso Line commissioners VS.. State, but de-
-. quesuons presented in the case that
~ DaI ior tne first time. The mill com
pany commended that the Jurisdiction Of
.ne natDor line commission does not
eA.enu over Salmon bay because said bay
nas only narrow mouth, which goes dry at
40" water, though at high water said bay and
su ucn quiet are navigable. The court holds
es sne jurisdiction of the commission does
extend over the bay, snd says:
II we were to hold that because soid bsv was
Aot navigable at low water ID did moi come
Wianin the definition of ssnayigable waters" as
tva ~ Sy sne constitution and legislation rea
i've 70 the duties of the harbor line commission
ers, the usefulness of that body would he very
much interfered with. II it is not nnvigable
lor the reasons stated, it would follow that the
Sound aD'e cI pc,.loa OF the waters of the
euch at least seems to be the necessary result of
sucn o holding. and II we were to hold this lat
s sgr paoposition 70 be true the board OF harbor
once. W
The other new question in the case related to
the authority Of the board to establish harbor
lines In front of Ballard city. The court de-
cides that the jurisdiction OF the board extends
over the water front of towns.
Inc case OF Mead, appellant, vs. French, re-
spondent, from King county, was also decided
Today. II was an action for damages for assault
ana battery. The plaintiff recovered n verdict
Tor II, and the superior court entered judg-
ment Tor the defendant for his costs, less
u, adludged as damages to plaintiff and 81
costs, the judgment in favor of defendant being
s2sl5o. The plaintiff appealed on the ground
that he and not the defendant was entitled to
the costs. The supreme court reverses the judg-
ment and remands the case with instructions to
enter judgment for plaintiff for 81, each party to
pay his own costs.
The supreme court has affirmed the Judgment
in the King county case of Herman Chaplin, ap-
pellant, vs.. d. H. Bokee and j. H. McCiraw, re-
spondents. The action involved the ownership
of certain lumber sold under execution Decem-
Der l6, 1890, but which plaintiff claimed under
bill OF sale from the judgment debtor
executed October 26, 1890. The court be-
low decided that the bill of sale
solvency and was void on its face, because it
did not include all the creditors of Robertson
the insolvent The supreme court affirms the
judgment because the bill of sale was not
properly brought before it, there being no state
meut of facts On the question whether an in
solvent can validity transfer property as in this
case, the court says:
Had the bill of sale been properly brought
here different holding might have resulted
for as at present advised we are inclined to the
view that debtor can without fraud place his
property in the hands of third party to pay his
indebtedness without resortng to the statutory
proceedings relating to insolvent debtors"