The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-03-31
Harry WHITNEYF FREE
r. Charge Of Forgery Against
Him Did Not Hold.
ervreAL PETIT LARcENIsrs OUT
e-syrr Bryant Explains the Workings
= the seattle Coal and Iron Co.,
Other Court News.

-. EASE Of forgery preferred by the
S..rs at education against Harry r. Whit
= sx-slerk Of the board. was dismissed
s.-.sr5ay afternoon by Judge Huraes. The
I.,ssasr was not a surprise to anyone xho
- followed the case during the day. as
- tates had Istimated on one or two oc-
-s.seos how he would decide The court
- was not a forgery within the mean
- Of tho statutes. for the reason that
- warrant had been regularly drawn ar d
r.n; through the regular channels. IL
rs no. as II the figures had been altered
wa name changed, but II was made out
"a ssxned by the president OF the hoard
al eognsersigned by the secretary.
The xzrran; in question and the one
xa,s which ihe state hoped to convict
whitney was issued to Isabel Wallace for
a. month of October 1893 on salary a~-
cant. when the lady did not work a, all
airing the month. Prosecuting Attorney
Hsztle, In his opening statement to the
ssry. stated that undoubtedly the war
rsns had been made out In the proper
manner. bat he thought Whitney guilty
81 forgery for drawing The money out OF
the county treasury. when Miss Wallace
IA not iad0fse II nor In fact know any
ming OF It, He also cited the fact that A
substitste had worked In Miss Waliace's
Race and had drawn her salary for the
month. Whitney received the congratulate
tisas Of his many friends, but received
taem with that quiet mein that has always
characterfzcd him.
The case was called about 10 O'Clock In
tie forenoon and 1t took but a short time
10 select jury. Prosecuting Attorney
EAsue read his bill Of particulars and in
formation and told the jury what he hoped
% prove. lie then called his first witness,
Prof Barnard but had only asked him one
saes,ion when counsel for defense OBJ
tcted TO the taking of any more testi-
mony for the following reasons. First,
shai the facts charged in the information
dii not constitute any offense: second, tina.
he facts stated In the bill OF particulars
fled by the state and upon which II re-
Ned for proof of the crime charged were
not sufficient 10 constitute a crime. and
third. that the prosecuting attorney had
admitted In open court In hts opening
stslsment TO the jury that the signatures
10 the warrant were genuine and that no
alteration had ever been made to the war
rant, and that consequently there could
b. no forgery.
Judge Humss then stated that he would
IKE 10 hear FROM the prosecuting attorney
upon what authorities he based his charge
admitted to be genuine and no alterations
hal been claimed. Mr. HASTE stated that
his position was that Whitney. knowing
THAT Miss Wallace did not teach during the
month Of October. 1898. but that Miss ely
ner did. Issued the warrant In the name
Of Miss Wallace. and got President Mac
pougaA to sign Il, and that he knew the
xarrant was false and fraudulent. and
that no services were ever rendered for
NH ssh o.
having on the same day issued a warrant
20 Miss Ciyner as substitute for that
month; that the statute defining forgery
70 be The false making of an order en-
bracst this transaction. ami that the war
rant 50 made and Issued by Whitney was
falsely made in the meaning OF the statute
and therefore forged. That ms subse-
qnently indorsing on the back OF the
warrant Miss Wallace. per II r w" and
iendering IL to the county treasurer for
payment. knowing Il TO have been falsely
made and Issued. was the uttering Of
Ialse and forged instrument in writing
aithln the meaning OF the law. notwith-
handing that his signature as secretary
mi that Of MacDougail az president on
he face Of the warrant were genuine. The
Prosecuting attorney further contended
hat the issuing Of warrants on approved
ay rolls IN payment OF teachers salaries
sfr Tue UhtN way IN HUlfn ne WIS AuInnf~
xed 10 Issue warrants AK secretary OF tho
'uard. and that he was not authorized
~ virtue OF being secretary TO issue
he warrant IN question TO Miss Wallace.
whose name was not on the pay rolls for
october. 1888.
ictoher. 1888 lie contended that the COM
non law definition OF forgery WAS extend
] by statutes OF this state 50 that tho
ra uduient making OF an instrument
Witch Is false Is forgery.
Counsel for the defense replied. citing a
lumber Of eaEes where a distinction Is
lrawu between falsely making an instru-
nent that ia. forging it-and making an
Instrument that Is untrue. these decisions
holding the latter class Of acts not 10 be
0rgery. These decisions were 60 the ef-
'eci that to constitute a forged instru-
nent there must Ice some counterfelted
Signature. or the alteration OF some inssru-
nent which has been signed with gem
zine Signature.
On deeidiuE the case the court said that
Ae would assume the facts 10 be az stated
b she prosecuting attorney In his opening
statement. bat that IN his Judgment those
'aets did not constitute forgery. These
'acts showed that the warrant was in all
respects genuine. and the only fault with
/ was that 20 valid claim existed as a
basis Tor the warrant. The school district
fceeiycd IA consideration for tho warrant.
and though tho act II the defendant. If
ne far,s stated by the prosecuting attor-
icy were true. would be Illegal. It Gid not
eere within the class ~ acts which the
l7S now makes forgery. He said that the
sifa of forgery, as We commonly under
y AMI Sc. IS the wrongful Offering q n sig
Hsiurc 10 an instrument which purports
To be tht signature % another. or the
franrful alteration Of an instrument sign
~ By another or under which another has
acquired some rights 4 cheek. draft or
ro'e would not ha forged merely because
r vas issued without consideration hy enc
having authority to issue such ins;ru-
nSHis For these reasons the court dis
eharge3 {hr tuty and ordered the defend
an dis AAreed
Il IS not lkelv that the prosecution VIII
akai1 move in The n8rter, as It conSid ,red
ihH ease ~ Mes Wallace the strongest
foai in It's possession.