The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-03-18
NOT A. BLOODY CODE"
Judge Moore Leaves krug's
Case to the Jury.
NO NEED OF FtcTioNs OF LAW.
Ysremptory distractions Dssfsd ~ the
Court-So Evidence for the De-
fsnse-Ths BIotseY.

testimony TO consroyert the charges
brought against him By the state OF us'D z
the city's money for the purpose of nakipg
profit, and the evidence adiueed IN sup
port OF the charge. Argument oy Prose
cutting Attorney Miller in opposition 70 the
motion Of the defense for q non suit - a.
resumed At q O'Clock yesterday morning.
He was followed by Mr.. Lewis for the de-
tense. who concluded ., about II O'Clock.
The lines of the argument we're much the
same as has been already outlined In these
columns.
At the conclusion Of his argument Nr.
Lewis announced that whatever the ruling
Of the court might be upon his motion the
defense would in no event offer any tes.i-
mony, but would let the case 60 the jury
upon the testimony Of the prosecution.
Judge Moore then said that he desired 10
examine fsv of the authorities cited and
would announce his ruling at ] 30 O'Clock,
until which time recess Was taken. Tho
defense felt degree Of citation and the
dawning OF . hope hitherto hardly enter
tanned at the apparent hesitation OF the
court In ruling upon the motion Ii had
been evident during the trial that Judge
Moore had listened to the numerous dis
plays of brilliant argument with much in
terest. and while his patience fretted at the
delay in the case he looked on with undis-
guised admiration at the vigorous battle
going on before him.
If the defense had built up any high
hopes Of favorable ruling. however, they
were doomed TO disappointment, for at the
afternoon session Judge Moore showed
that he could combine a fine appreciation
Of legal and literary ability with the pos
session Of q sturdy common sense, as he
read the following ruling upon the motion !:
20 smtiemen. Since the adjournment
have attempted IN draft my views OF the
matter involved in the motion made by
the defendant for peremptory instruc-
zion. and i have taken up the points that
were made by counsel as well as | could
gather them or remember them from the
argument
snow upon the frat proposition Does
the statute define a crime2 The statute
Gays that person situated as the defend
ant was. that's. an official person. shall
not use the public funds for PROFIT or in
any manner not authorized by law. Take
the first prohibition. that is To say, shall
not use the public funds for a profit. In
that language an otfcnse is defined or de-
scribed. The only difficulty there could
DC would DO IN placing con-
struction on the words in a
manner not authorized by law The
city charter. sections 8 aud 10. Of article 8,
prescribes the duty Of the city treasurer.
and fully and definitely tells him how no
should pay out the public funds of the
city In his hands; to pay them out in any
other manner 10 to violate the law. for he
then uses them In manner not author
ised by law. SO that. IN any view which
may DO taken OF IL. the statute is not in
yalld Tor vagueness or indeiiniteness. The
FIRST ofiense In sufficiently we'll defined,
ana the worda I'm q manner not author
fsed by law, are limited by the restric-
tions upon him in the use of the public
moneys found In sections 8 and TO- of
article Q. in the city charter.
'Second-Ought the court to grant the
motion because the statute relates to
money. and the transaction out of which
the prosecution grew was one about
credits. and not about money? II the
premise to admitted, 4. e., that IL il n trans
action about credits and not about money,
then the prosecution mus. fall, because
the statute and the indictment both dis
tinctly refer to transaction about money
The evidence shows the defendant was
city treasurer on tho I'd of July, 1892, ana
as such treasurer had an account with the
Washington National bank; that prior TO
that time the bonds of the city had been
sold and the proceeds placed in the Chase
National bank. OF New York. This money
was placed To the credit OF the
Washington National bank OF this
city. How this came about
does not distinctly appear. The
Washington National bank credited that
amount To the defendants account as
treasurer, and 10 otherwise appears from
the evidence that on the 81 day of July.
Isa1. the defendants account AS treasurer
was IN such condition with the Wash
fugton National bank that the defendant.
ss such treasurer. might draw a check for
800 against II and that bank would nav
that check on presentation. so that 1t
makes no difference whether the full pro-
ceeds of the bond sale Was then 10 his
credit in the Washington National bank,
because he had in that bank city funds
snfficient 10 pay his check for Si0oo)-ths
evidence clearly shows that While hi.
account rs city treasurer was such ~ TO
make his cheek against IL good for $luooo,
he drew this check as city treasurer against
that account. IN favor of Henry Fuhr.
man, for Sio.oa. call 1t n check
for convenience and identity. being
aware that the direction which II
contained for New York exchange TO ISSUE
for IL deprived II OF It's strict legal char
aetcr as a check, The office OF cheek is
10 direct the payment or transfer of
money. In lega! contemplation. the city
treasurer had money in the Washington
National bank subject to his order or To-
his check. Ii can make no difference that
the defendant a. city treasurer directed
that New York exchange isxue tor the
none, which he directed by the lns,ru-
nent OF the "a at July. isss2. In De paid 10
Henry Thurman. and that Henry Fnhr
man, as payee. also directed New York
exchange "a be issued for the sam named
Co he paid. The New York exchange co..,
money, and could not have been 81 with
ons ii. Tie cheek implied the pressucs of
the money. the evidence shows that the
money would have been paid # tile New
York exchange had net been requested :;
that che check was worth $1,000, n al
the New York exchange was for sia.un.
Was worth sio.oot. Was issued to
Henry Thurman on the defendants
cheek as city treasurer. and that the ex-
change for st0,Uo had peen paid. aud -
nov ~ evidences atth all the evidences of
payment on 1t. Hut VAS this transaction
sbous money or about credissf The check
Ns-.oa The ~ ot Jay. I>l, accepted by the
W ashiagton National bank. VAS thereby
hohofed hy H. Exchange for the amount
~ directed to De paid 10 Henry FuArmau
Was issued 10 Henry fuhrman on New
York. The check Vas taken in by ths
Warrington Nstlonsl bank az other checks
are, u VAS cancelled and marked PAID
anu charged Ia tie account of she defend.
ant as cay treasurer. and has account a.
sGea treasurer sas reduced by the amour.
In no ehecS, + e. si0,es1; 80 that neither
he nor the city could have demanded Of
the Washington National k.uk "a.
amount due on the treAsurer'. arAauut
there, as II sss before tae Henry FahruAa
check .hsd heen presented and IGNORED a.
stated, and resolved that amount. be-
cause IL had eeen reduced ~ ths ueprr
Fuhsman transaction sloQol In modern
commercial transactions cheeks. draft.
aud bank credits have come e. take the
Tssacs and to relieve thoss So engaged n