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

him by thu constitution or laws OF re
United States These counts in the m
eirtrnent charge. IN substance. that TIE IN
tent was IN this case 20 hinder ara pfe
vent faese citizens tn the fire. exercise ana
~nsoymer. OF every each al and sinGu-
lar tire rights granted them by the consTi-
tuition. etc There Is no specification OF
any particular right. The language Is
broad enough 70 cover AL.
After laying down the general proposl-
tons Of law which we have before noted.
the court proceeds 20 say:
''All crimes are not so puuisnahse-
Whether particular crime be such one
or not Is question OF Law. The accused
has therefore. the right 10 have q ssses,ih-
cation OF the charge against him in this
respect. IN order that he may decide
whether he should present his defense %
a motion TO euash. demurrer or plea, anu
the court that il may determine whether
the facts will sustain the indictment 80
here. the crime is made TO consist IN the
unlawful combination with an intent 10
prevent the enjoyment of any right
granted or secured by the constitution.
etc. All rights are not so granted or Sc
cured. Whether one Is 50 or not IS
question OF law 20 De decided by The court
not the prosecutor. Therefore. the indict-
ment should state the particulars. 10 IN
form the court as we'll as the accused IL
must be made to appear-that rs TO say,
appear from the indictment. without going
further-that the acts charged VIII TX
proven. support a conviction for the Of
tense alleged. These counts
are too vague and general. They lack
the certainty and precision required by the
established rules of criminal pleading.
II viii be seen by an investigation Of the
law upon which the Indictment in the Ease
at bar is based. that the trouble antici-
pated by the court in the case OF United
States vs.. CruIkshank. supra, cannot arise,
for the Indictment here charges the I'M
lawful act or the particular act which by
the law is made unlawful. viz: the use of
the money Entrusted TO him for the pur-
pose of making a profit out OF IL, and the
use of IL In a manner not provided hy
law. And the accused in this case
has the benefit OF the specifica-
ton OF the particular act constitut-
ing the crime. for under the statute the
crime consists OF the acts specified. II ne
makes q profit out OF the money irtrusted
30 his care. in any way. ne falls within the
provisions OF the statute or IL he uses the
money in any way not provided by law ne
falls within the provisions of the statute.
The legislature. doubtless recognizing the
fact that IL is exceedingly difficult 10 con-
vict for endorsement in cases OF this KIND
where the ordinary rules Of criminal prac-
tice and at the same time without depriv
ing the defendant OF any material right, TO
formulate a statute which would render
easy the administration of justice, and I'M
der which the real facts in the case could
be ascertained. This provision of the law
may well be sustained, at least so far as IT'S
application goes TO officers who. under the
law guiding and directing their duties have
sufficient notice furnished them by an in
dictment drawn under this statute.
An Easy Defense If Innocent.
A provision of the charter which pre-
scribes the duties OF the city treasurer OF
the city of Seattle IL TO the effect that lit
shan be the duty OF the city treasurer TO
receipt for moneys OF the city and pay out
the same only on warrants drawn in pur-
suance Of the order OF the city council.
signed by the mayor and countersigRed and
registered by the city comptroller" 1t fol-
lows that any use OF money by the city
treasurer except upon warrants is unau-
thorized b. law; and il would be a COM
piete and easy defense by this officer to
show that all the money which had come
into his hands as said treasurer, over and
above the amount remaining in the treas
ury, had been paid out upon warrants in
the manner prescribed by law. II he can
show this. then the accusation that he has
used II In a manner not authorized by law,
or that he has made a profit out of the
funds OF the city. cannot be sustained. IL
he cannot show IT, the presumption ought
10 attach that the accusations are true;
for. in the very nature of the Office and The
duties OF the officer Il is impossible for the
state to allege or prove the embeZZlemsnt
of any particular money or any particular
part OF any funds. Any such restrictions
"a these would have the effect of allowing
enSbezzling officers Of this description 10
escape the penalties OF the law. while the
ufn NJ ha 81 ~ "a ff,
any way prevent them from making a oom-
plete defense TO the charge in case of their
Innocence.
For this reason we think the statute in
this case should he sustained: and for the
reasons mentioned above. viz. the impos-
sibiltty Of describing particular moneys or
particular funds, all the objections ny the
appellant 10 the introduction of evidence
IN this case. without specifically mention
ing them. will be overTuled.
some BaseIess Objections.
1t is alleged that the court erred in refus-
ing the challenge for cause 20 Juror Will
lam Fox. on the grounds that the juror
testified 'that he was resident for years
AMI taxpayer in the city OF Seattle. AMI
had paid money 10 the city treasurer. OF
which Mr.. Kr-lg was treasurer. and which
money ne was being charged with having
converted" We think this contention is
hardly worthy OF discussion. Carried TO its
logical conclusion. every taxpayer in the
country would be held TO be an Illegal juror
in all cases where officers were charged
with having enahezzled or misappropriateI
thu public funds. and. indeed. IN every
criminal case, for under our laws. upon
the conviction or acquittal Of a person
charged with a felony depends question
Of costs to the state or county.
The next contention. that the court erred
IN not sustaining the challenge 20 Juror
Fox FOR actual bias, Is equally without
foundation. The juror nowhere said that
he rad an opinion as 20 the merits Of this
case T. - true that ne stated that from
some accounts ne had seen in the news
vaper. ne had an opinion or an impression
that the Appellant KrTig had loaned money.
hut ne continuously asserted that ne did
not know or have any idea whether Il was
his own money or whether Z was the city's
money. and several pages OF adroit cross
examination failed 20 elicit proof that the
Juror had any opinion as 10 the gull: Or IN
roceuce OF the defendant OF the crime with
which he was charged. In fact. he posi-
lively asserted all the time that he had not.
He may have had an opinion that the de-
rnn.fsnr had loaned money. or that he had
bought a horse or sold a farm. but such an
opinion could IN no way he material 20 the
,sstie involved viz whether he had made
a rs-ofs out ~ money 81 the city OF Seattle.
l. - also claimed that the court erred ia
not sustaining the challenge 80 the juror
Cults. on the ground OF actual bias We
do rot think the record vii sustain th9s
contention. THIS Juror. upon MS eNanina-
ton. in answer "a the question. Now. on
ths assumption that the facts were true -
YOU read them n the paper. Won formed an
,pinion. "a YOU not7' said. We'll. think
rsyt formed an impression and the
whole croSs-ex animation did rot elicit the
fac; that there was anything more shan