The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-04-14
TIE REPATH APPEAL.
efendant's Attorney Scores
the Prosecution.
snste 70 Quiet Tisie - An EXTENSIVE
r..et Of Laod-Ths City 81 Bal
lard and . sewer Contrast

The brief Of Charles r. Repath. respond.
Sens. in reply TO the brief oil prosecuting
3 ATTORNEY Miller. who appeased TO the 90
preme court from the decision Oh suoes
Humes in granting Eepash WIZ Of pro
hsbitsors, directed 70 Justice Caidwea o
the tins the state arrested hepatn the
third time for forgery. was hieo In soe
superior court yesterday AFTERNOON, ana
1 viii be forwarded With other documents
I In the case to the supreme court The
I case In she beginning Vas one o. the most
8 taisresiing that had been before the su-
1 rerior court for many months, owing 20
the skill shown by Repath in his defense.
4 Of The charge brought by the state With r.
1. essnson. general agent for Washington
Of tie New York Mutual Life Insurance
I Company. The jury acquitted him. bnt
q hsiore be had the opportunity to leave the
conrt room he was re-arrested on
4 the same charge. but In oonnsc ton
s vish another check. The state did not
hs!ng the case to trial within sixty days,
the time named In the statutes, although
Rspash vas ready and demanded 70 Be
tssed The matter was taken before Judge
Humes. who dismissed the indictment and
discharged Repath from custody. The
prosecution. however, relying upon the
clause in the Code OF 1887 which says that
3 m order for dismissal il not bar 20 an
] other prosecution for the same ofFsnse IL
q ihs crime DO felony, had Rspanh rear
rested On the same charge with the intsn-
! ton of bringing him before Justics Cald.
well for preliminary examination Re-
& path then got writ OF prohibition from
1ssl- I'D
& Miller appcaied to tho supreme court
I from the decision overriding his demurrer
B 70 the petition. In the brief filed yesterday
1 She following remarks appear:
I'VE take II that the prosecuting attor-
ney could not evade the order and j1dg-
i msns Of the superior court by any such
1 God .. II he desired TO further prosecute
I be should have applied 10 the superior
court for leave TO filc q new information:
that court had acquired absolute jurisdic-
& ton Of the relator and the province Of the
I committing magistrate had been exercised.
II the prosecuting attorney felt aggrteysd
81 the Judgment. ar II the court refused TO
4 permit him TO file new Information the
proceedings should properly have been
{ brought here for review. Respect for The
3 courts judgment aside from regard for the
defsndant's rights ought To dictate such q
course. The absurd construction con-
tended for by tho appellants (rels,ing to
repeated arrests on the same charge)
mus. result in making the pros
scu.ing attorney. regardless Of the
courts and their orders, tho king
oil his domain and the sole arhiter OF the
/ liberty and reputation Of our citizens. from
whose Judgment there can be no appeal
anil whose despoIic decree may consign
the most innocent aud unoffending victim
! OF his wrath TO an endless night for liberty
and reputation with the state. without the
slightest hope of . final judgment ~ to
En or innocence. The unfortunate man
hnds himself butietted from justice Of the
! the peace to superior court and vice versa,
With an occasional trip TO the supreme
court. He becomes the piaything Of the
prosecuting attorney, who iaughs At his
demands for constitutional rights and who
scTsrrides the judgment OF the courts and
srogates 10 himself the power to make or
unmake any man"