The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-03-15
RUG FIGHTING HARD
his Lawyers Contest Over Every
Inch Of Ground.
MN SANDWICHES or EVIDENCE.
|sr1es Moore Override tAs Attack On
sAs Isdiesmsnt and Nest 0s5es-
tioas Of the OeSssso.

The fourth day Of the Krug trial has
Y uded. and In spite OF Judge Noore's ef-
ms TO expedite the case. the tsstim ouy
81 = the prosecution has not all been sub
4 nitssd. The defense Is making . strong
Il "a strenuous fight. raising legal obisc-
4 dous at every siep OF the prosecution.
j many Of them 30 fne - 70 require lengthy
srxumens and careful confederation on the
tysss Of Judge Moore.
The auditorium of the court room con.
aimed large number Of spectators yesses.
day morning. and vas well filled in the
rftsruoon. Throughout the entire pro-
eeedings the half dozen individuals In.
1;cted With Krrz n accessories and thei.
I attorneys paid the closest attention to
ssry point raised. and frequently notes
vere iotte1 down By one or the other n 4
/ posnt Of fact or Law was brought out which
l nigh. influence their own cases Ado.ph
1 Krug. the defendant. Ia whose behalf sgch
) great legal battle 10 being fought 10 the
most Insignificant looking and, except for
l he intense look Of sersoasness IN his face.
apparently the most uncoacerned person
within the bar.
Argument On the point raised By the de-
lsnss that the indictment vas defective In
rot being sufficiently definite was re-
samed yesterday morning by Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney Mcbride, who con-
tended that the section OF the Get defining
tbs ofense Of the unlawful use of public
funds was followed by another, to-wis;
Section IS Of the penal code, which
limited the necessary afirmancs in an In
diciment Of this character to the words Of
he ssatute without setting out any I'm.
lawful purpose whatsoever, and that the
general statute on the subject OF ihdic,-
msnts vas limited aud controlled in this
particular case by the provisions of Sec
ton 81, and he cited numerous authorities
from Missouri and Illinois. in which latter
state there 10 statute somewhat similar.
Mr.. Lewis in reply argued that the cases
cited from Missouri had been subse-
Susntiy overruied and the statute in auss-
sion had been virtually declared uncon-
stitntional. for the reason that it did not
sufficiently SGT out in the indictment .'ths
nature and cause Of the accusation"
Judge Moore held that he was bound by
The language Of section IS Of the Penal
Code, which states that il il sum Gent to
ailege generally the misuse Of public funds
by an officer. taken In connection with the
l.@f
that an indictment 10 sufficient If the
ofense charged 10 set forth in such man
ner a. to enable . person OF common
understanding to know what vas In tended.
In view OF these provisions and the fact
that the indictment in question sets forth
the names Of the persons committing the
offense and the one injured. the precise
sum charged to have been misused, the
time and place of taking it. namely. on
July 2. 1892. In Seattle, It must % held to
be sufficiently definite. The point 10 to
the constitutionali;y Of section IS was not
touched upon.
The defense took exception to the ruling.
and the trial proceeded with +. o. Graves
on the stand. The check for $40, coo given
BY krug to Henry Thurman on the Wash.
ington National bank on July 2, 1899, was
Identified by Mr.. Graves and introduced in
evidence. Among the papers found by
Graves in krng's desk during five days in
September when he was treasurer was .
receipt or memorandum signed by krug
OF &ll6 interest on three loans to Fuhrman,
as follows: May % to August !. Q per cent.
on 81. 900. $a6.67; June Is to August 1, 9 per
cent. on 5000. sci; July Ito August I,
6per cent on $4,000. $is.33.
On cross-examination Mr.. Lewis elected
the fact that the funds Of the city against
which the Thurman check was drawn
arose from q credit OF the Washington Ma
tional bank in the Chase National bank.
OF New York, and was the proceeds OF
sale of eity bonds, aud be endeavored to
show that the Washington National bank
converted Krug's check against the WASH
ington National bank into draft on the
ci,y's money IN the Chase National bank,
and that the transaction was wholly one Of
credits and not of moneys.
On redirect Mr.. Graves explained the
process Of paying . check and issuing .
draft. showing that when the bank gave
Thurman the New York draft the krug
check was paid Just the same as II he had
been paid in cash. Two more checks Of
krug TO Thurman for $1,000 and s., ooo. be-
Ing the other two alluded TO in the msin-
orandum Of interest above mentioned,
were identified and offered in evidences.
when another long legal argument cnsued.
The prosecution wanted to show by these
checks krug's guilty knowledge of q mis-
use OF public funds by showing that he
was pursuing a system of lending the city's
money. The defense strenuonsly objected
10 the admission Of the checks in evidence
on the ground that the indictment did not
set out that krug had . guilty knowiedgs
of The misuse of the public funds. and also
tha. other and similar transactions than
the one charged with the same individual
can not be introduced to throw light upon
the main charge.
Daring the argument Judge Moore ex-
eused the Jury and observed ths, he had
always tA.n vht rhe noon rseesSer were too
long. So at Il 80 he ordered q recess until
, n.
Al the conclusion Of the argument after
neon Judge Moore held thar the proof
offered Of ether collateral transactions bs-
tween the parties had such close con-
necGion With the msia transaction ihat
the evidence is admissible. After the
checks had been read. Mr.. Lesis made an
other objection 90 their Introduction on
TIE ground that between separate ofensss
alleged The prosecution must elect upon
which Il shat! prosecute. and sass men
evidence as TO other offensss can aos Re
admitted. The court. after examining the
iss. said that the checks we're not al
rnitted 20 prove another offrnss. oes were
collateral, evidence 10 throw Light spoa
the main Transaction.
On ss-cross Mr.. Iess
souglt 10 learn whether the thurman
check hsi been repaid. and on oefeetion
msde 81 argument, Dot was overr1ist-
I. I. Cllrk MAS the nex. witness. lie
sssGlne8 that he has been bookkeeper Tor
Henry Thurman Eor tue last three years
lie identified the memorandum OF interest
pala ~ krug and said that he made a
from the looks of Thurman lie Was not