The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-04-05
0sT STAND TRIAL.
~ Notion to Dismiss Yesle.
will Case Fails.
poNERs TO BE ARRAioNED.
reoe Against Hoekwala Dle0loeoA,
hst Nay Come Up Agala-Twe
Dsmaxe saits for Injasieo.

- uotions TO d;smiss the charges Of eonspir-
M forgery against ORA J. Eugene Jordan
/ - \. Martin Van Buren, were dsnied By judge
3unss yesterday, after the attorneys for the
euuascuiion had given reasons for the delay in
6Ine sbe inio.matsona
7 y. Carr opened the case 10: the prosecn.
-. and cited authorities to show that, al
+ nesgh the statute required thai informastons
laid be aled within thirty days after the &C
eused had been bound over. still il was matter
within the discretion Of the court. and the limit
! obuid he exceeded II sufiefeut cause wsrS shown
~ the prosecution. Mr.. Carr then lsfs II 70
1tusecuting Attorney Miller to set forth his
YDaDous why the deiay should not bar the states
ut Of action against the prisoner upon tness
e1afges.
NJ. Miilcr's showing was In the form OF am
1ayiss 70 the effect that be had delayed ming
- An iavits on account OF the pressure Oh pno.
ne business and also because his understanding
vas that the rulings Of the courts and section
i36s Of the code allowed him to file the tnfor-
natious within thirty days after the fling of
. transcript from the justices court
James Hamilton Lewis spoke ~ length In
hSus Of the motion and c0ntended that the
vssds OF the statute were explicit In support
r hse contention he cited 4 number Of author
~. bot Judge Humes decided briefly that the
roeson should 10 denied, and that the prosecu-
~ had shown cause for not filing the intor-
naftons within the prescribed time.
lmmediatey upon the rendering OF this decis-
IN " n. White, attorney for Mrs. Yesler, gave
posice that he had flied motions on her behalf
70 dtschange her, exonerste her bail and to
reutxaiu further proceedings These motions
are boood upon objections raised aud overruled
a ~ examination before Justice Humphreys
u . word they amount TO a claim that the
auses Of action. II any. ara against the defend
sa1s Jointly aud cannot be split up and made
- subject OF Q number OF prosecutions; that
~ iussics lad no Jurisdiction because more
IS Ten days had elapsed from the time that
- defendant was brought before him until
u undertook 70 examine into the matte: tho
~ 6nal reason was that the justice did not ex-
onino ths com piainant on oath or reduce any
Nstmouy 20 writing. but issued . warrant
utaheQt these preliminary procesdinga Another
oetion was made TO dismiss the charge of con.
Qifacy upon the ground last stated in the fore
sing motion: yet another TO require Justice
Humphrey 70 transmit to the clerk OF the
aperiof court the testimony In writing OF all
~ wttaeesss examined by him and Of ell the
1eeuuedtary evidence introduced upon tho ex-
sninstion.
Prosecuting Attorney Miller moved that these
uetioos b put upon the SATURDAY Trial calen-
-, but Judge Humss said that, being criminal
noeious. they might DO heard at any time. and
~ today for the hearing.
Dn Jordan and Van Buren, and MrsL Yesler
vRs oil three In court, and Mrs. Yssler in par
tsulaf looked pale and worried. Judge dumes'
lsaisl Of the motion to dismiss the charges o.
bjosdaa aud Van Buren, makes IL certain that
NJ viii b brought TO trial. and It 10 probable
~ - soon ~ Mrs. Yesler's motions are dis
pD1o1 OF today, all three will b arvaigned at
~ earliest opportunity.