The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-03-26
sUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Important Ruling on Hold-Over Terri
tOriAl Od1cera-king Countx Cana.

OLYMPIA, March 25.-lSpecial 1.-The supreme
court died the following decisions today:
Frank A. Smalley, appellant, VI. William Fl.
Smell, respondent, from Pierce county affirmed
The principal question in this case was whether
or not the term which q county officer was hold.
ing at the time OF the admission OF the state and
which he was continued In by virtue of section
OF the schedule OF the constitution, should be
counted in constituting section OF article XI
which prohibits the holding OF more than two
terms in succession The court decides: That IL
should not, apd that though the respondent
hold at the date CT the admission the Office Of
prosecuting attorney aud haa been twice re-
elected. his term OF ofiice commencing on the
second Monday In January, le33, was but his
second successive term within the meaning OF
Article HI
Schwaoacher Bros. & Co, appellants, W. Fl.
g, Van Reypen ct al. respondents. from What
com county, reversed. Van Reypen executed q
real estate mortgage TO the appellants in which
he declared that be WAS q single man, aud after.
wards sought to defeat the foreclosure of the
mortgage on the ground that he was married
man, and the land therefore was community
property Tie court decides that: The appel
lsuts We're justified by Van Reypen's represen.
tations in dealing with him q single man,
ana that rs they had no knowledge to the con-
trary, they are entitled TO q decree for the lore
Closure of the mortgage. This decision follows
rulings IN other community property cases OF
related character and says: "rhe al parent de-
lieerate attempt on the part OF Van Reypen to
deiraud those ith whom he had dealt as au I'm.
married man, well illustrates the necessity Tor
tAG iA4t prom ItEatcu III tDnks cases..
Denny Hotel Company, appellant, VS.. David
gilmore, respondent from King county; al
nTmed. The points decided in this case vera
substantially the same as those in the case of
Denny Hotel Companv W.. Schrani, decided YES
teFday, viz: That a subscriber 10 capital stock
does not become liable until the entire amount
OF TIE capital STOCK IS subscribed ana that one
corporation cannot subscribe 10 the stock of
another. The pay Inent by Gilmore OF $500 il a
held. did not tx hi, liability.
- Eugene W. Way, appellant. vs. James H.
Noo9eFy, sheTin, re- pon.ent, nom King county:
affirmed. Alter the decision by the state an.
pEeme court in the case Of Nay vs. the territorv.
which was transferred on the admission of the
state, from the territorial supreme court which
decision remanded the case to The supreme
court o. King county. tBe latter court issued its
commitment 10 the sheriff, commanding b m
To ImpElson Way until be paid nne OF s. 70 and
costs. The present case then arose upon wit
OF habess corpus sued out on the ground that SIS
the enabling act nor the constitution provided
IL express language Tor the remanding of terri
ioriei criminal eases by the supreme court TO
superior courts for further proceedings, the SUI
peslor court hal no jurisdiction 10 commit
The court decides that: Ample provision was
made In the constitution and in statutes of the
Lrsi legislature for the reTnsndiug o! such
eases"
J. II Foster. appellant, vs. James H. woolery.
sne9lE, respondent, from King county: affirmed
stated
". D. Robertson, respondent. vs.. P.A.woolery.
az al, appellants, from Skaglt county: reyersad
In this decision the court rather shsrnly crit:
ciEss the action OF the superior Judge in refns-
Ing to grant motion for continuance and
IN forcing appellants to go % trial Immediately
after the last pieadaa nleG. The oninian
says: The court aenied the motion and. with.
cur sny cause being shown. ordered the tri.l 10
besla Immediately. Necessarily, there lore the
sppe.. Gnts did net have lair trial. In every
case such reasonable time after tue plesdinrs
are on tie should be gwen the parties as viii
enable them 20 make proper preparation. Il is
Use e-s - appeal 10 tie rule ID at tais court does
NoI lotertere vita tie exercise OF the discretion
- ne superior courts. lime 10 prepare for
H1~1 IS a matter OF right mach a. time to
eau anu cannot b taken away under any
principle OF iustice"