The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-06-12
ARG UMENT On KRUG'> APPEAL.
The Ex-CIty TreaSurer-s Case Before
the supreme Court.

Prosecuting Attorney HASTE returned
from Olympia yesterday where he argued
the case OF the state VS.. AdoIph Krug. on
appeal from the judgment OF the criminal
department OF the superior court which
found him guilty OF using public funds for
private profit while in the Office Of city
treasurer. Krug was found guilty and
sentenced 10 seven years in the peniten-
ti2ry March -. 1894. He appealed and the
case has been dragging It's slow length
along until now. This was the first term
held by the supreme court since Haste
came into Office in which any Of his eases
could he set for trial for a new term.
The question argued was whether the
Office OF city treasurer was one contem-
plated under section of the penal code.
II was contended by James Hamilton
Lewis on the part OF the defendant that
II only applied 10 officers holding positions
under the constitution and laws of the
state and did not apply to a city officer
holding his position under the freeholderS'
charter and the ordinances of the city.
a number of other points were raised. one
of which was that the Indictment did not
state facts sufficient to constitute an Of
Tense; another was that Judge Moore was
not requested by the governor or the
Judges of King county TO hold a term Of
court here as required by law. still an
other was the improper admission of tes-
timony. and another point that vas urged
strongly was the improper selection of the
grand jury. II appearing that no list Of
the one hundred names selected by the
county commissioners had been prepared
for three years previous TO the empaneling
of the grand jury, the law providing that
these Isis shall he furnished each year
Prosecuting Attorney HASTE answered
that the city was organized under the
constitution and laws of the state. with
out which IL could not exist. and there
fore the law applies TO city officers the
same as TO all others. In addition 10 that
the constitution has similar provision
10 the statute Furnishing the ofense with
which the defendant was charged. and II
apnlies to all officers without limitation,
and he contended that it was selt-execut-
ing As 10 the question of the suffciency
Of the Indictment, there Is speclai stat
ute in regard to what need be charged IN
ofenses Of this nature and me indictment
was drawn in view OF that statute. In re-
gard 10 the power and authority Of Judge
Moore 10 hold a term of court in King
county. the constitution provides the pro-
cess hv which he shall he requested, and
If ts more simple in its form in a statute
that was passed subsequently. Mr. Hastie
commended that this portion OF the consti-
tuition was also selfgXecuting and super
seeded any statutory provision; and in tins
case the counsel for the defendant had
failed to make their objections 10 Judge
Moore's presiding until after the trial had
ended and that they were, therefore
stopped from making their objections Tor
the first time in the supreme court ms
had been passed upon in the case or the
State OK rel Sachs. and was decided in
favor Of the position taken by the prose
cutting attorney. As to the improper Sc
lection Of the grand jury Mr.. haste con-
tended that II was nothing but an trregu-
Iaritv which the statute provides shall not
invaiidate any OF tho proceedings
The case was taken under Amusement
ana a decision is looked for inside OF thirty
days
The appeal Of William Holmes, convicted
Of murder. was also argued en- The same
dav before the supreme court.