The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-03-17

strength OF this credit TO the W ssa.ng.o7
sa;sonai bank the latter gave credit TO
tire city Of sesstie. That In no event wss
there any money Of the city Of SEATTLE ia
fhe Washington National bank. Iass
therefore the defendants check 20 Fair
man called for exchange. which wss given
by the Washington National hank en- the
Chase National bank. Taerefore. the de-
fendan. con.endef thss be never obtained
money belonging TO the city. bat oHiy
credit: thss the ncney. Ii obtained ~ aii.
was the banks money and part Of It's gen.
eral deposit fund.
''Second-Taat II any nonev Vas OBJ
tanned II ves obtained only III Nex ! orx
upon the draft upon the Chase Sat'onai
bank. and. therefore, IL there was any
crime ii .as committed in Nes YORK, and
could not be prosecuted In this court
"Thira-Tha. the statute ga. invalid for
its Indebtedness and failing TO define the
acts conEituiin. the crime OF using she
money in q mannsr not authorized oy
law. That it left 10 the judge 10 state
what acts came within the meaning OF the
Law and thus permitted the Judge 10 legs
late in creating the ofsense. This would
be unconstitutional and the &C: would ee
void. and no sentence could be passed
upon . verdict"
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mcbr.ce
in reply argued that krug was not charged
with the ENHANCEMENT of the money
itself and therefore that the authorities
cited by the defense were not IN point. He
was charged with using public money for
the purpose OF making profit. and that
the check and draft were only the instru-
ments TO get the money out Of the treas
ury. He also said that the defendant was
Liable under the statute for making
profit out Of the city's moneys under his
control whether they were in New York
or here He claimed tina. the statues
called for liberal construction He drew
distinction between the possession Of
money by a city treasurer and that by an
individual or private corporation. The
city treasurer must have bis Office in the
city in " hich he discharges the duties Of
his Office, and no matter where the money
is paid the Law is that the payment is out
Of the treasury OF that city. He also
raised new point in the practice in this
section by claiming the application
of the principle of estoppel in criminal
cases. citing several decisions in point.
This is that the city treasurer having
funds OF the city IN bank and giving
check on the bank payable in exchan GO
aud for which cash may be obtained. and
the man TO whom the check is issued takes
u
treasurer is estopped from coming In after
ward and claiming that the check was not
paid in money.
one of the occurrences of the day which
caused n number OF significant chances to
be exchanged In the court room and
showed the earnestness Of the fight which
is being wased was the application OF
woman Tor permission 10 speak to her hGs-
band. who is on the jury, and of course
whom she has not seen for several days.
1t was during the course of the argument
and while the jury were in their own room.
The lady was Mrs. Sallee. and her husband
is the member Of the legislature from
Juanita. When Judge Moore told the
counsel IN the case who the lady was and
what she wished no objection was
made by the counsel for the de-
tense. and Prosecuting Attorney Mil
Ter had also consented, when his
deputy, Mr.. Mcbride. suddenly reaiiz-
ing what was proposed. emphasically in
terleeted To the court: In the presence
of the bailiif," aud. turning to Mr.. Miller.
he earnestly exclaimed: Warn him"
A moment later he reconsiderei even this
concession. aud arose and grayely adj
dressed the court as follows; Your
honor. deem IL my duty to object TO any
communication passing these people even
n they are ma n and wife. This case is too
important. and too much is involved in il
10 permit this request to be granted"
Later in the day, however both Mr. Sailee
and another juror sent out letters which
we're previously read by Judge Moore