The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-07-26
HANGED BLYTHE NECK
The Death Sentence Passed on
Murderer Holmes.
APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT.
Judge Maore Maintains the Regularity
Of tho Trial aud Kefase< Writ
OF Prohibition

eefar.d miner at Newcastle last Jabuafs'
was Yesterday denied his motion IA arrest
81 iudesaent. AID after a lengthy but IN
s,,eeexsful argument on the part Of his a.
toruev for a wstt OF prohibition - restrain
Judge Moore from passing ssnteheey iA That
judicial officer. rsfEslng 70 entertain = mo
lion which he characterized 81 expstT
mentiug With the courts, eaAie1 sjaehs
defendant and passed on him the dfeass,
sentence Of death in the rtereoiypsa
nbraseogogv that ends With, hanged ny
the neck until dead. IS,
Tia court room was almost empty, Win
only the prosecuting attorney. me prs
anef's attorneys and two or three others
pres.nt beside the 5ldge on the bssach - ana
All showed in thelF faces the Keen aPpfe-
citation 81 ths solemn worsis that dos'fnea q
human being to- death; all, but fhe pms
oner. He stood I'm fSont OF the clerk desA
facing the Judge. balanced on one ioot. ans
short chubby figure reduced IN size py q
stopping posture. rHnd looking stra@ptse =.
the Judge never moved muscle oeSoHu
the slow steady working OF MS JAWS on
ouia OF tobacco. lie appeared the perfect
picture Of indifference. and was hna.ty re-
turned to the eousty jail, giving no sign
by word or look Of apprectsting the e1-
tFemlty OF MS posliotl-
Last Monday Judge James u. Moore de-
MED motion for new trial ana gas m
,uediafelv confronted with n motiSndn
arrest Of Judgment on the novel groaha
that he had been improperly summoned
from Spokane 10 King county to Try the
case. hence had no jurisdiction. Judge
Moore took the question under AMUSEMENT
and has been rtgo days busy looking up
a At - n
in criminal actions. The grounds on
which the motion was based have created
considerable discussion among the lawyers
generally. the bar beng about evenly
divided ON the question. hence Judge
Moore's decision was eagerly locked for.
Reading from notes the Judge said: "a.
.sThe question Of Jurisdictions Of this
court TO try this prosecution has been care
fully considered. The counsel made no
considerable argument and submitted no
authorities. hence the court A. carefully
examined the books for fight upon this
subject. o a.,
IF the act Of 1888 providing Tor calling
Judges into counties not their own 10 hold
court is mandatory or Imperative that
mniority of the Judges of the county shait
unfta in the request then the defendaut'S
polnt il well taken. If. however, the
statute is directory merely. the point IS
not good. co.
46I. Sherwood. j.. says:2
s..tt would not, perhaps. be easy 20 iAt doyn3
any general rule asEo when a statute Il III
reetory or when mandatory or imperative
Where the words are affirmative ggd rs.a sat-, To-
the manner IN which the power and turisdie-
tlen vested ines public oniGef, or BODY Il 70 DO
exercised and mot TO tefs limits OF tue poweEor
nrlsdietoagtsst they as ~ a1a .,s .gslsy
words which 20 % the power '"ro lhslsaicnon
have never been brought tn the category. IT.
b74 see. al, euth. stat. Cons Q 80 .
ststJnless "A fair consideration of9 q statute
directing the mode 81 proceeding col It's ofiTceys
shows that the Legislature bhiEnded eomp.I-
aneo with the PROV. si0ns ~ relnion thereto 70
he essential to TIE validity ofJhc pfoceedingx IL
il to be regarded as directory merely. TIT
KamsRs. 273. JOKES We. Stste.l
sssThose directions, ROT OF the essence OF
things 10 BE- done, but W hich given merely
with view 20 the proper, orderly and prompt
conduct OF thetagsiness. amt 10y failure 70 obey
which the right Of those Interested Will nsss. ~
pfeludiced, are not commonly 20 De regarded as
mandatory: and u the act IL performed, but not
in the time precise mode Indicated, u vial
still DO sufiieiena II that which IS done aceomp-
iiHhos1tfe~ substantial purpose OF tue statute.
tfb. p a7,. city apthorities.I
.sThe foregoing Is possibly - good
description as the books afford of mands-
tory and directory statutes.
THE act OF 1893 was for the purpose of
prescribing in aproper alfd orderly man
ner the getting of Judge from 4 county 20
act for Judge in another county and to
provide for ether matters in connection
Herewith. IL does not pretend TO confer
jurisdiction. for jurisdiction was conferred
by the constitution.
Judges Of the superior court are officers
OF the state. ard THIS act says that these
officers may ~ called 90 discharge their
functions In any subdivision OF tie state.
and undertakes To- pIescdbe the manner Of
doing II. The real purpose OF the act 10 10
a. 80.
interest may recognize, % relieve con-
gested dockets. To act during sickness,
absence or other disability Of "a Judge, si~
s'Ihc governor, ander certain conditions
may direct superior SQUIRT Judge 10 20
cut OF his county or district and hold
court In such case. could u he pre-
tended that the acts Of the judge could be
held void for yaat OF Jurisdiction because
the governor had not 0een requested by
superior Judge 10 designate some Judge 60
hold court ia his county or district
''lt is submitted that no such attack on
the authority Of the c0url could be sue
ee<stul because the real purpose of the
legislature has bSeu suhscfIed when the
visiting iudEe has held the court under
such request IS gwss made. ir other
words the statute under consideration is
directory merely. aud not imperative or
mandatory. o
..fssSides this the subject matter Of tots
state. and the court held hers during the
absence OF Judge HuR4es ia March. lS.a
was legal under me provisions OF The con
stitnton.
And as further argaolent showing
that the statute tTC question Is diyertory
We have il prescribed inC the constitution
that a judge shall So on the reqSest 81
another, Judge. which Was a CONSTITUTE ton Al
prescription % the manned ot tet ting one
3udge by another. Now the legislature by
kshc act Of isSG changes this 10 a1nrr II get
ting the Judge. by saying IL there l. more
than one Judge in tire county the request
shall DC ~ majority 81 them. Suppose
there we're two judges IN a cuunkv and
they could not agree on the calling al am
other tudge or the particular a&ge 10 BE
called; or suppose thai = majority Of the
Judges oi Fhc eounty Werc aet TIA the
county hoH the necessity arose for call
iug another judge, ~ goald n0t be reas Aetl
~ were under Snch sickness o. dtssblNlV
that they could net act then would not
thts statute In effect repeal the section 81
article 4 Of the state constitution about the
ealanr - judges from one comfy ~ an
ntlseFf Il wauld &ppeaT to have this ~.
sult, IS Wc eoastoie the act ~ lStzS "a being
mandatory. II can ensx be harmoniEel
with THIS provision 81 tho constitution IS
treating IS A. directory. That p1riian al
tho constitution referred - i section =
article 4 state constitution, pase SsS
"sfho lgake st slpariar eoafk may held a
seFctiny e.,yrs in AZ S,STaty a Use scQr&ss -
the tUeee ~ tna s0pcrlar ceari tsefggk Ags
Upsa0 ttt request 81 t~su geySFGeg shall - his
0Gty 60 da So
This visiting judge has bis cega1niss on
FROM thu constitution a. Wel! s. lFaFa the
statute, sad without tie slsLafe 9onia
have aathortty Ga act apoa request Ihu
Object II she Fc'laest - simply ~ ssraFe =