The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-12-19
MH INFORMATION NEEDED.
UEMrnnER SUSTAINED IN THE
LEVI SMITH FORGERY CASE.
Ralfn~ N an Technical Grounds md
Smith Dees Not GET His Liberty
Fergea Warrant Cosia Have No
y value CnffI Pat In Circulation

Snsse Ja@ohx yesterday fled an order
..-ss,,n~ .he asr1urrer OF Levi @. Smith
60 the information charging aim Win 90
tanning money under false presenses ns
the fo.Rary Of county warrants om.la
does not rcgain hss liberty, noWeFss' -,
re court explicitly directs thai be be held
&, custody the ground Of the ruling De-
.nx Of q technical nature. The inforn1a
stor charges that the warrant IN question
Wa 4 thing OF value. put fhe court nolfs
that a forgcd warrant could have had no
yalne until IL had been put into cireuaa-
ton, and the Information falls 10 allege
THAI IT was 10 circulated. BORROWING ID
the courts opinion fn fun:
The statute upon which this information
f. founded reads as follows: II any per.
s~on, with intent to defraud another, shan
dssagnediy by color OF any false token or
writing or any false pretenses obtain rom
any person any money. transfer note:
hand or receipt or thing OF value'-shsH
b punished as the las provides sec-
This information fs founded upon the
allegation that the defendant, obtained
thInE OF value. to-wH, county warrant
b. the means Of tn. false pretenses set
forth In the information. and the only
serious question presented fs whether said
warrant Was a thing OF value. % as TO
come within the meaning Of the above
quoted statute. The allegations OF the IN
formation. briefly stated. and stated with
out the ordinary legal formaiitles. are
these.
.@I,he defendant presented TO the board
e. county commissioners, with the Intent
10 cheat and defraud the county OF King,
at account for work and labor. pretended
BY him 10 have been done in Road Dis
Tici No. -. Ia sections - and 20. IN the
county Of King. state OF washington. The
fase account so presented had upon II the
forged name Of Charles Harding. whom
IL was pretended had done or performed
said work aud labor. The amount claimed
In said pretended bill was SCI. BY the
inanipslations OF the defendant. the s4id
bill had upon 1t. and connected with f.
tue certificates of the Toad supervisor of
said district and Of the commissioner hay-
lng charge OF said district This false
Dill. with said false certificates and sigma
lures. wac presented TO the board of county
commissioners. and they, deeming IL a
true bill and a valid claim against the
county, duly ordered the auditor of the
Thls warrant went into the possession of
the defendant and was by him falsely as
signed 10 himself.
The Information alleges that By means
81 said false pretenses the defendant came
into the possession OF said warrant and
that II was a thing of value 1t is al
I.ged That Its value was the amount
shown upon It's face The information
stops here and does not ailege whether
that warrant was put into circulation or
afterwards paid by the county, and II
ton Ii concerned that the county ever
lost anything except the paper upon
which the warrant was written. II ~
earnestly and pIansihly contended by the
states attorney that the value of that
paper Is sufficient TO sustain this Informa-
ton. but this court hesitates. or rather
would hesitate. In case OF a conviction
TO SEND 9 man to the psnitensiary. from
one TO nve years for having obtained
that which possibly may be of value of
one-fanfh OF one cent.
II is very manifest TO any person who
will detain the subject before his mind
for short time. even II Il does not APP
pear at glance. that the proof which
the state would have TO make OF the ale
cations OF the Information would show
that this warrant had no other value
than that OF the paper upon which II was
written.
The law OF warrants. briefly stated, Is
~ follows: Whatever properly there Is
u any. In county warrant can be trans
ferred by assignment or Endorsement In
commercial sense. warrant Ia not ne
xotiable. Any defense affecting It's valid
ity, or any other defense. such "a set
81 or counter claim may he made against
4 even IN the hands OF a bona fi,ie pur-
chaser for vsliie If invalid for want of
authority TO issue 1t, or fraud In secur-
.ns it, issue. or. as alleged I'm this case
II its Issue fs secured by the use Of false
pfctenses. the county can always stop
It's payment. when II fnis that any OF
these causes which have mentioned ex-
ists, II Is for these reasons said above
thar II the state proved The facts alleged
In It's Information II would itself show
tltAf me aiieSeu warrant was not a thing
Of value
Il was at first inclined 10, yield 20 the
argument of the prosecuting attorney shat
the value OF the paper upon which this
warrant was written was sufficient. be-
cause section 20 OF our penal code made
by express provision n warrant the sub
beet OF larceny. But the Missouri courts
hold that the statute concerning the sub
Jet az larceny has no application TO the
statute concerning false pretenses Al
common law. az every lawyer knows the
only description OF property which causi
b. the subject nf larceny was personal
goods or things movable. and having ia
themselves an Intrinsic value. The crime
could rot BE committed either of things
which SAVIOR Of the realty OF written
Instruments 81 any description.
Believing Il 70 he within the power
of the states attorney 20 make m h.
formation sufficient In iaw 10y the allie
safion that The defendant put this war
rant into circulation ard that Il has bean
maid n% the county and thus that the
counfy ha= hean dcfrauded out OF the
principal and the interest thereon az the
tieae ~ its payreft. II maid. | have con
,slUS}ed "a sustain this demurrer. with
.eftssal 10 dischaFre The defendant and
with the privilege II allowing the states
attorney TO file a Few or amended infer
nation