The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-07-09

4 special dispatch 70 the Pos.-Tnselii-
genc-r from Olympia last night brings the
news mat the supreme co1rt OF the state
has affirmed Judge Jacobs decision IN the
Hestor and Kinney case. acqu..ting them
OF ire charge Of forgery IN connection
with the road and bridge fund warrants
Of King county
For one thlng. the decision Is an unusu-
ally prompt one. since X was Just two
weeks ago today that John Il. Hart. for
she state. and John Fairfield Dore for the
defense argued and submitted the case
in the supreme court al Olympia.
The point on which the defense relied
almost entirely In the King county SUI
perior court was that the paper alleged
10 have been forged by Heaton and Kin
ney did not come within he list OF for
geries enumerated by the law. This point,
which Won q decision from Judge Jacobs.
also figured az Olympia. though 1t was az
cornpan!ed by two others. The first 20 Mt
Set up by the defense vas that the infcr
nation charged three oTenses. by reason
Of the fact that the prosecuting attorney
alleged that tie forged instrument was
uttered by Heaton and Kinney first 10
King county. second TO the board OF couu-
~ commissioners. and third 10 Fred
Gascb Under the laws Of this state but
one offense can De charged IN indict-
ment or information. and Il was Mr..
Dores contention that each separate pre-
sentation Of the paper 10 the three persons
10 whom the forged paper was presented
III and OF Itself complete and dis
tinCt orense.
The second point urged was that the
prosecuting attorney did not set forth in
the Information the forged paper in It's en-
tirety. although he described what the
forged paper Was. Mr. Dore claimed that
his mistake here was in setting out part
OF the instrument. and before doing 50
stated the instrument is of the tenor fol-
lowing" According TO all precedents this
would absolutely necessitate a duplication
or reproduction Of the entire instrument.
The third point was that which Mr.
Dore presented with signal success before
Judge Jacobs in the superior court, viz:
That the section of the state code denn-
ing forgery enumerates some thirty in
strumeuts that are the subject Of forgery,
and after doing SO, concludes with the fol-
lowing language: "Or any other instru-
meni in writing Mr.. Dore claimed in
his argument In both the superior and su-
preme courts that these words above
quoted related to Instruments of the kind
enumerated. and that by reason OF the
fact that the paper claimed by the state
TO have been forged by Heaton and Kin
ney did not come within any one OF the
categories enumerated IL could not be
c!assed as a forgery.
In the event Of the supreme courts sus-
tanning this last position, Heaton, Kin
/ ney. Levi Smith and the other men I'm
kpiicated with them cannot possibly be con-
vFicted OF forgery.
H. on the other hand. the last of the
three positions is not sustained by the
supreme court. but its decision rests on
the first two positions taken. then the
errors OF the prosecution in the informa-
ton can be rcmedied by the fling OF new
iuforma tons. and the battle will all have
10 be fought over again. AT any rate the
immediate effect of this decision Is (, 1t
Heaton and Kinney stand absolutely clear.
in the eye Of the law, Of the henous Of
Tense Of forgery, Notwithstanding the
fact that Kinney with treTuous haste
avnwed himself a cuprit.
There are other cases notably some
from Spokane county. now pending in the
supreme court. the issue of which will be
virtually settled by this decision.