The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-07
EXCHANGE OF cIvlLlTlEs.



a a lively tilt took place yesterday morn
ing IN the municipal court room between
Tpuy prosecuting Attorney Wiltshire
sHa a u Mcbride, attorney for Rernard
-. aHc toikky-Bernard case ans. in iootg-
lot time az If blood would be spilled
me opening OF court Mr. VIII
s.i5e SAID that he wished on nehslf ~
the state to move for the ds.cssrva :,
sfe osIeadAnts. He was satisfied tia.
1e esiaenee was insufficient to warrant
e.a ssan8 held, and he was strengthen
"a the opinion that the case ought 10
dismissed because II had. at one time
- investigated by the prosecuting at
s oH4ee with the result that he had
slusea 70 HE complaint against the
aeIendant- The story told a, that time
- tHe prosecuting witness conaicted with
AIS statements on the witness atand in
asmaeh as he had previously laid that
.sas asme OF the payee was not written in
lns note. while on the stand he had
so1a directy TO the contrary. The tes-
aHsoay OF Bernard's wife was also in d.
rect contradiction OF her former state
nents 10 the prosecuting attorney. She
.o,a MIN that she had not seen Coisky
.aAs the note. while on the stand she
had sworn positively that she did see him
take H. Ii was evident that the action
had Deem brought through motives of re.
sense ano ne did not propose that the
used for any such purposes.
MT Mcbride said that the case was one
OF the most unpleasant he had ever tried.
Tor the reason thar he had been COM
peiied 10 sit with folded hands and listen
TO the iukewarm conduct OF the case by
man whom the entire press of Seattle
ana nine-tenths of the people united in
denouncing for his incompeteney TO ill
his Office.
AT this point he Was interrupted by Nr
Wiishires appeal TO the court and was
reprimanded by the court for the use of
such language. Dir. Mcbride stated that
ne mad gone 10 the prosecuting attorneys
Office armed with asiidavits in regard 10
the matter, but that he had been refused
q hearing,
Upon this statement Mr.. Wiltshire
sprang TO his feet and. with a consider
able show OF indignation. said that Mfr.
Mcbride had brought his affidavits to the
prosecuting attorneys office. and that up
on reading them Mr. HASTE had returned
them, saying that the matter had been
thoroughly investigated previously, and
that u had been decided that there were
no good grounds for commencing a GRIM
inal action; that Mr.. Mcbride had come
10 tie Office in a c-inging. apoiogetic sort
of way and begged that a complaint
might be fled. saying that 1t meant car
pets for HIS new office.
Mr.. Mcbride then proceeded at some
length to comment upon the testimony.
but was interrupted again by Judge Gias-
gov. who stated that he did not care to
hear further argument. Without giving
the attorneys for the defense an oppor-
tunity for argument. he began 20 review
the testimony. He said that the fact
that the prosecuting attorneys Office had
reached the conclusion that the case
should not be prosecuted did not neces-
sariiy enforce upon him any obligation TO
think likewise and. after a most careful
consideration of the testimony. he could
not bring himself 10 any other belief than
that the defendants should be bound over.
He was interrupted several times
by the different counsel with sug-
gestons. but continued for a period
of perhaps fifteen minutes in GO
ing over the evidence and setting forth
HIS reason for arriving at his conclusions.
Before finally announcing the result he
gave the defendants attorney an oppor-
tunity TO speak, but both Mr.. Winstock
and Mr. Ingersoll declined to say any
thing. He held each defendant in $40
bonds for trial In the superior court.