The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-07-17

-
tFs-.s-aS y rnlst logically fo,fou $3.50 49,
- - = erected under the s.,y,~*sts+t-.-, = -
49, = ne state, for the law co-fe--s---
sIo,, - . right 20 provide for IRE essse
sso-.~ - 80 osneers Il a delegation az lie
- OF The state 20 the CITY
secion 81 Of the General s,z.,,.o
sss mat the legislative r-,xe-s 80 go
49,. oshhized under the prcvgsfor< =.
a1L xhn toga.a.- -
- - osnsr elective officers "a NAV he
sta.s Tor In Oh charter. shall he
80 al the times. In such manner ans
49, III terms, and shah perform sfcFr
MAJ - 80. -. reeve such compensation, as
% prescribed in such charter As
nave before said. the axtlor 81 -
~ alaa the validity Of its acts IN s.a..l,,-
- - easHrer, all flow from ana are derar.
~. upon these provisions Of the law
- constitution Itself In aActtor =. -
"a. Al, seems 10 have Initiated the
- upon which this statute Is based. and
p a, ,nat the making OF profit out OF
- 80 S4.s' town or other public money.
" using the same for any pt,rposa rot
aotnorlzed by law, by any ofsscar ha.gn,
'hs Possession or control thereof sbar ba
a ietony. and shall be prosecuted ard ~
Ishea as provided by law: and fhs enar,.
.Hene on section 81 Is in perfect haruarv
WITH THIS provision OF the constftutfon ara
,hakes provision for carrying I. into esre.f
Mooid' Indeed. destroy not only the
intention Of the constitution.
pus o the statute, 20 hold that this pro-
vision OF the statute did not sppiv To treas
urers VINO were not directly elected under
the provisions OF the law.
The Indictment Definite Fnouyb
A question. however which has gsven
tue court vastly more trouble than the
oile JUST discussed and which is really the
Nitai question in this case as we view n
Is embodied In the contention tina, .he de-
murrer should have been sustained he
.ause the Indictment did not state facts;
t"aI H. that II was neither direct nor GER
'ain as regards the crime charged. nor
was IL direct and certain in charging the
particular circumstances of the cr-r,a
necessary 10 constitute a complete crime
under the law. The charging mart Of The
Indictment is as follows:
Adolpn krug and Henry Thurman are
accused by the grand Jury OF the state Of
washington, in and for King county. said
stale. by this indictment, of the crime OF
using public money In order to make a
proht OUT OF the same. and for purposes
not tnen and there authorized by law.
committed as follows: That on the 25
DAY OF July, 1892. the said Adoiph Krug.
then ana there being and at said time
was a city officer, to-wit. the duly
elected, qualified and acting city treas
urer OF the city Of Seattle I'm the county
OF King. state OF Washington, and being
then and there charged under the proyi-
sions or the charter and the amendments
thereto OF the said city of Seattle. the
said charter being commonly known as
the freeholders charter, with the res,eiv-
ing and safe-keeping of ali moneys be-
longing TO and the. property of the said
city Of Seattle. the said CITY of Seattle
then and there being a municipal cor
poration duly organized and existing
under and by virtue OF the laws of the
territory, now state. Of Washington, and
az such officer and city treasurer as
aforesaid the said Adoiph Krug was then
and there, by virtue OF his said city office.
Entrusted with a sum and amount of
10000 In lawful money, for safe-keeping
the same being public money. belonging TO
and the property of the said city of Seat
tie. and which said money was under the
care. custody and control OF the said
Adolph krug as such officer and city
treasurer as aforesaid; and the said
Adolph Krug. officer and city treasurer as
aforesaid, on the "a day OF July, 1882. In
said King county. state OF Washington,
unlawfully. felonicIsly and in a manner
not authorized by law. did use the said
$1,000 public money as aforesaid Of the
value of $4,000 in lawful money. in order
to make profit out of the same, and for
by law" etc.
II is most earnestly urged by the ap-
pellant that no statement OF facts is set
forth in this Indictment which would noti-
fy the defendant of the particular crime
with which he was charged. and many
cases are cited TO support this contention.
notably a case decided by this court, viz:
State VIZ Carey. Wash. 42i
There is no question but that as a gen
nary statutes and under the com
mon law requirements. this indct-
ment would not be sufficient. aud the ease
of State w. Carey supra. was based upon
the provisions of our statute and the gen
eral provisions of law in relation TO Grim
inal procedure. But that case, with all
cases OF similar character, is not in point
here for the reason that our statute es-
peciaily provides that the ordinary re-
auirements Of an indictment may no
omitted from indictments for this particu-
lar crime, section IS OF the Penal Code
providing that lin prosecutions for the Of
lenses named in the next preceding sec
ton Uhe section under which this tndict-
ment was brought, Il shall be sufficient
TO ailege generally in the Information or
Indictment that ans such officer
has made profit out of the public money
In his possession or under his control. or
has used the same for any purpose not
authorized by law, 20 n certain value or
amount. without specifying any further
particulars In regard thereto. and on the
trial evidence may be given Of all the
facts constituting the offense and defense
thereto" SO IL viii he seen that this
statute carries the indictment in this case
heyoua the rale OF the common law or the
ordinary provisions for criminal pleadinss
In statutes: and as the Indictment follows
as CLOSELY as IL could he made 10 do the
provisions or the statnte. the only ques-
ton that remains 10 he determined Is. Us
he statute constitutional. or can II be
sustained In the face Of tho sixth amends
,nent "a the constitution Of the United
states viz. that i'm all criminal prosecu-
t,ons the accused shall be Informed Of the
nature and cause Of the accusation.
T, g contended by the appellant. With
so,ne show Of reason. that the Information
furnished in this indictment Is OF rather
,,,sarer quality as well as quantity. and
MANY cases are cited bearing on this prop
osstloo We think. however. that they
IAN All he distinguished from the case IN
,,otrt The nearest TO an analogous case,
- rhe one which Is referred 20 in nearly
an t,e other cases cited. IS that OF United
states Us. Cruikshank. % L s. so There
3, vas held that IN criminal cases the de-
fendsaslt had n constitutional right 20 be
informed OF the nature and cause or the
accusation. and that the indictment muse
g, forth the offense with clearnesS and
an necessary certainty 20 Rpprise the az
,ussss Of the crime with which he stands
charged and that every ingredient OF
vrhtrh the oTense IS composed must
- accurately and clearly alleged.
=, .hst ease the defendant was
=, ,--a.s with an intent 'to hinder and