The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-06-06

shaf rule 10 near the border line Of con-
srruction 30 say ne least
TO escap. the operation of the third rule
mentioned above. towit, II the efsuHera-
ton e1hausts the genus, as II seemingly
did ia TIE constitutional provision: and II
II I'D 50 exhaust the genus OF puniic prop
erty, then the general words would nave
theft ordinary and popular meaning ana
the provision OF the legislature, exempians
property from taxation. would oe valid
TO eSgape this conclusion the court by
ccrlstrae,ioa created a species OF quasi
public property UPON which tue general
words eogIi operste under the rule OF
eJGsie-n gensris-
Wash. 2ss. the language OF the statute
was any money or other property what
soyer There Is no doubt but what THIS
decision Is correct. hut any one with a
moments reflection will see that the ex-
preston any money exhausted the genus
Of money. and, therefore the general
words any other property whatsoever,
must have tbsir ordinary and popular
meaning. This is not the reason given in
the opinion. but IL - the correct principle
upon which the decision rests
The case Of the State Us. White, u
Wash. All is OF the same character and
sustained by the same reason. and is no
douBf good law.
The case Of the State vs.. Sufferin. s
Wash. Id. is not in point. In that case
there Was an enumeration OF the buildings
or places in which a burglary could he
committed. The building mentioned in the
buildings. and the question i'll that case
was. 10 whether the things predicated
of the building mentioned In the general
words qualified the building mentioned in
the enumeration. The court held that il
did not. The decision was right, but the
principle Is not Involved in this case.
I'm the case Of the State vs.. Rein. IL
Wash, 1s4. the language Of the statute
any money transfer. note. bond or
receipt thing OF value This YVES a
ease of iadg.s beaver shoulder cape.
The court said that the principle OF
olusdem generis does not apply. and the
court was manifestly corFect. because a
thing OF value II in the enumeration it
self.
Il have now briefly reviewed all the
cases cited from our supreme court, and
l find none OF them In conflict with the
opinion that this court has come 10 In this
ease In principle they harmonic with
and sustain the judgment OF this court.
The instrument IL this case which
is alleged 10 have been forged was a ficti-
tous claim for work performed BY
fictitious person on A public road in this
to anything. IL must receive the indorse
rneut of the supervisors OF the district in
which the road WAS situated, that the
work was actually done, and that the
amount claimed thereon was justly due
the claimant.
This Endorsement or certificate was
genuine.
Further. the claimant had TO receive
the similar certificate of the commissioner
of that portion of the county in which the
road was situated ii must also be ap
proved by the board Of county commis-
sionerS. and such approval evidenced by
the signature OF the chairman of the
foard of county commissioners. If this
was done II became a perfected voucher,
and went TO the auditor OF the county,
who issued therefor IA warrant. or county
order which when presented to the treas
urer OF the county, IL in receipt of funds.
would be paid
II u1er what system OT hook fhiS
order could he paid by the treasurer of
the county. without the Endorsement of
the payee or original claimants. or with
out the assignment of the payee or origi-
nal claimant written thereon, Is some
what OF a mystery TO the court. IL there
was such an assignment written on the
back of this county order or warrant then
u would be within the very language of
the statute. and II these defendants. or
either Of them. forged the name of said
assignment they would he liable but this
Is not what is charged in the informa-
ton l have come Ia the conclusion from
the last point stated that this claim al
statute, and am also Of the opinion that
Tho indictment or information cannot be
sustained on the points mentioned hereto
fore in this opinion. / might saw in con-
clusion that Judge Richardson OF the SUI
parior court of Spokane county with the
concurrence Of two other superior Judges
has gone further somewhat i'm the line
OF this decision than ! would he willing
20 go. The opinion of Judge Richardson
however has we'll understood technical
grounds upon which to stand What Is tho
result of this opinionP Simply this: This
information in my Judgment states facts.
showing clear case Of obtaining money
by false pretenSes. and the prisoners will
not be discharged. hut will he held for
such further action AZ the prosecuting at
toruey may see fit to taEe
1sFspa al.