The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-07-13
ABSOLUTELY PUpe

more than that he would plead guilty and
wanted Tortson 70 agree that it wouldn't
be more than that Fortson wouldn't do
that, and afterward when he read tho
charge 70 Donovan the latter pleaded
guilty.
At this point Clerk Dowd WAS called ON
to give his recollection Of the occurrence,
and he corroborated Judge Giassow's
statement.
Mr.. Stedman was then asked his recol-
lection Of the occurrence and he cor
roborated the judges recollection in the
main, but could not go how Mr.. Fortson
was deceived. At first. when asked to
plead to the charge of using obscene. pro-
fame and abusive language. Donovan said
he was only guilty of using the words,
He can 20 to h-l," and on Fortson re-
peating the question he said: II plead
guilty to that" Mr.. Stedman said it had
occurred to him at the time that Mr..
Fortson had been nisled by Donovan's re
ply. as it was questionable what was meant
BY it, and he felt at the time that IL was
susceptible Of . double construction.
Being asked BY Judge Glasgow whether
or not the plea had been changed at his
request. he said that at first il had not.
but that later il was. and he had de-
manded . jury trial. He explained by
saying that when the judge was unable to
ascertain the gravity of the oficnse and
the city attorney would produce no other
witness to enlighten him on the matter he
stated that he desired further informa-
ton and would enter plea of not guilty.
and at that point he (Stedman) came for
ward and announced himself as Dono-
vans attorney. and that after consulta-
ton with the judge he formally requested
that the plea be changed to not guilty..
After these statements as to the facts Of
the case. Judge Glasgow again asked Mr..
Fortson If he would prosecute the case.
whereupon Mr.. Howe again stepped for
ward and was proceeding to make an Ar
gument justifying Mr.. Fortson's refusal
when Judge Glasgow stated that ii the JUS
LITIGATION was going to be made on legal
grounds he would continue the case until
10 o'clock this morning. Mr.. Howe had
outlined two points ON which the defense
rested. One was that under the charter
the city attorney was subordinate officer
aud subject to the orders Of his superiors,
and such being the case. his superior
officers, Mayor Ronald and Corporation
Counsel Donworth were the responsible
parties, aud il there was any contempt it
should be laid at their doors. Again, I'M
der the charter, the law department OF the
city had exclusive charge Of the legal mat
tiers of the city and of all cases arising
under the city ordinances, and could pros
ecute case or not at its option. It was
jus: the same Is foreclosure case in tho
superior court. II the plaintiff chose to
n h. q - 81 al
him to prosecute IL.
When Judge Glasgow announced that
he would continue the contempt case Mr..
Scott arose and wanted Donovan's case
continued until after the contempt case
was decided. He said that if Mr.. Howe's
theory 10 tho law he didn't know as it was
incumbent upon him n . citizen or IS .
member Of the bar to prosecute the case.
He did not want to be placed in . false
position. With the merits or dement's Of
Mr.. Fortson's case he had nothing to do.
He only wanted to do his duty. The
question of who shall control this case,
the city attorney or the court. should be
determined before proceeding with it. If
the city attorney can control it he didn't
want to have anything to do with the
matter.
Judge Glasgow remarked: ~ have ap-
pointed you to prosecute this case. Are
you ready for trisl?'
Mr.. Scott--Yes. sir. ii the court holds
that Mr.. Howe's contention is wrong.
Judge Glasgow have appointed you
TO prosecute this case, Mr.. Scott, and We
will proceed with it.
Mr.. Scott then prosecuted the case to
such good purpose that the jury brought
in verdict of guilty. The Judge asked
the clerk what the costs had amounted to,
and was told $50. He then made the
vxa,, fir lfn