The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-06-20

The Oyster Beds-Regent smith De-
feated-The Msyberry Case
OLYMPIA. June 19-fSpecial. l-opinions
In the following cases we're hled In the su-
preme court today:
A. J. Smith, petitioner. VS.. w. I. For
rest, commissioners of public lands Peti-
toner vas an applicant to purchase GER
tain tide lands reserved as natural oyster
beds, ard petitioned for writ to npei
the land com missioner 20 make certincs-
ton. whereat the supreme court says:
Before bringing suit for msndamus the
petitioner must comply with the law IN
making proof TO the mmissioner OF pub
lie lands under the prescribed regulations
OF the Office that be is entitled 10 the
rights claimed. No such allegation having
been made he is given ten days 70 make
allegations that such proof has been fur
nished, but If in such time no such aslega-
ton OF proof is fled the writ will be dis
charged"
state of Washington ex. rel. John w.
Stearns respondent. VS.. Andrew II. Smith
ct al. appellants. This is an action on
the official bond Of Smith, given rs treas
urer OF the board Of regents OF Pullman
college. The breach assigned is the fall
ure of Smith TO turn over funds OF the
college In his hands at the expiration
his term. 1t was contended By appellant
Office until their successors are regularly
nominated by the governor and confirmed
by the senate, and consequently that the
action of the governor in naming O new
board and the subsequent election OF
Stearns as treasurer by them was without
effect. The supreme court says: The
present board OF regents are the de facto
regents of said college. and II is the duty
of the courts to aid them in obtaining pos
session of the public funds devoted to the
agricultural college. The board had q
right, and IL was their duty, TO elect a
treasurer. and the acts of the officers de
facto are valid when In the interest OF the
public to sustain them. The act electing
Stearns was a valid act, and he became
treasurer de jure of said board. The iudg-
ment OF the Tower court IL affirmed
State of Washington, appellant. VS..
Elmer Mayberry, respondent The ques-
ton in this case was upon the sufticiency
of the information. The indictment
charged that the defendant was an agent
and was intrusted with a certain sum of
money. and that he unlawfuily converted
the same to his own use. The trial court
held the indictment insufficient, because
IL did not state that the conversion was in
King county, where the indictment was
filed, and we think in so doing correctly
interpreted the law. There 10 nothing said
that discloses where the unlawful act was
committed. If the indictment had charged
that the conversion was in King county,
then proof of the circumstance which
would authorize the jury to find that to be
the fact would be sufficient without any
direct proof in regard thereto; but since
IL was necessary for the jury TO find that
the crime was committed in King county
we think il should have been so alleged in
the information. The judgment must be
affirmed.
]. S. Peterson, appellant VS.. W. +.
Wright and d. M. Duckworth, respond
ents; from Pierce: affirmed.
William Donahue, appellant. VS.. Thomas
Johnson ct al. respondents-From Kitti-
tas county. Judgment reversed and case
rcmanded for new trial.