The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-04-13

ssst- - .hssrsto % rrassd. = entitled after
yssosnmsnt . relief therefrom. II sach
tIAl1 can be shown Ard thfs alfnosgxh
ne had an opportunity 70 Show the szsrs
- Judgment. but BY the exercise
permit judgment ootained By fraarsfal-
Isnt practices % stand. The poorest SUP
plant before the courts is entitled 10 y1-
dictal assistance II ne present 70 the esosfrr
after Judgment goes against him some
Tact which. II before the court sEossEA
nays prevented therendi,ion OF such tmdg-
menf~ and which. without any fault or
negligence OF the party, wac not 70 pre-
s~nt~c- Fraud viii vftiate and render ia
Operative any contract or any judgment
bow much moro necessary in things erin
inaig How insignificant are they wtfh
mat which ranks higher than al mere
erty." .'''
Mr. Mcbride opened hts argument by an
explanation OF the writ of corana MOTHS
and cited numerous authorities 20 show
IN what class Of cases IL would and would
not lie. He did not claim that the writ
might not be properly issued in sxtrems
cases. and admitted that the writ might In
certain cases grant just and proper relief.
but ne also said that II was not necessary
10 pass upon the question whether the
writ would or would not lie because the
allegations or the petition were not suffl-
Client 10 bring this application within the
rules embraced within any decision on the
question.
He argued that the writ Of corarn nossls
would only lie for errors not appearing in
the record, and backed his contention
with numerous authorities IN evil and
criminal cases. He also contenued that
the writ would not he 10 retry an issue of
fact. that In. that a question Of fact ance
settled Ia case. could not be again re-
viewed by this writ OF error. coram nobis.
With these two questions settled in favor
ne Lev sf he lat Of a H. -
read the various allegations OF the petit
ton and the aifidavits supporting the
same, and showed that each and every
claim Of fraud alleged by the petitioner
had been passed upon in the trial OF the
case. The petitioner and his attorneys
waged a desperate fight 10 destroy the
force and effort OF the evidence OF ex-
Chief OF Police Bolton Rogers. and espe-
ciaiiy that part Of hts evidence wherein
Rogers testified that he found 81. In gold
In tin tobacco box In the Craemer
wood house. The petitioner had numer-
Gus af,.davfts to break the force and effect
OF this most damaging piece OF evidence
against Craener. but Mr.. Mcbride show
ed that at the trial Of the case Mr..
Craemer. In testifying. denied all knowl-
edge of the money being there. or OF be-
ing the owner of the same. and the evil
dence OF Mrs. CFnemer was To the same
effect. and the fact whether the money
was found stated by Rogers having
been submitted TO the jury. 10 could not
under the law. as above stated, be In
CURED into by the writ OF coram nobis.
Mr. Mcbride read every allegation OF the
petition and stated the evidence that was
introduced at the trial Of the case brought
on behalf OF the prosecution and the de-
Tense and insisted that every charge Of
fraud. every point urged In favor OF the
issuance OF the writ had been passed on
at the trial
Judge stalIcup followed Mr.. Mcbride.
his effort being an earnest appeal In be
half of the writ. The keynote OF hts ar
gument though was fraud committed
by ex-Caief OF Police Rogers.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Hart ar
gued next on behalf OF the state. He said
there were three reasons why the writ
should not issue, First. assuming that
the writ was u proper proceeding under
the judicial proceeding OF the state. Il did
not set forth facts sufficient 10 cause an
issuance OF the writ. Second that the
writ had no place or standing In our ju-
diciai procedures. II can only have a
standing in judicial procedure by virtue
OF the fact that IL was one OF the common
law wriis. and at the common law there
was no appeal or rey1ew Of the facts as
passed upon openly by a jury. A writ
or error would lie 20 higher court. which
would simply receive the law as laid down
bs the trial court, but would not 20 into
facts presented by the evidence. To sup
ply this deficiency OF common law IN the
trial OF criminal cases the writ OF coram
nobis was borrowed from chancery prac-
tic~ and made applicable 10 common law
criminal procedure. THE conditions %
society and OF our system OF procedure
are absolutely Incompatible with that ex-
/ isting with common law In this. that We
have q method by motion for new trials
and by an appeal 20 a higher court and BY
motion and petition 20 vacSts and modl-
Is judgments when once rendered" Third.
that the supreme court OF the state he's
already made an order and = Judgment IN
the premises % the effect that thu judg-
mont Of conviction was affirmed and the
case remandod TO the lower court with
directions 20 TX date for the execution
OF the sentence. and for this court 20
grant the writ would simply be To per-
NIT the superior court 30 act as q rcvisorv
court 20 set the supreme court judgments
aside and hold them FOR naught. This
Mr. Hart declared. was Impossible ard
absurd He said a justice or the peace
would have as much right % set aside a
Judgment 81 the superior court as the lat
ter tribunal has OF setting aside the su-
IRENE court Judgment He characterized
the Allegations Of fraud against ex-Chier
Rogers as ridiculous. II never was an adj
nlirer or supporter OF Rogers" he said
'sbut I do rot believe he would do such
thing as pat up 500 OF his own money
90 hang an innocent man There are
things fhst no man would DO"
Mr.. Dennis begun his argument in Se-
half % he writ. and was continuing when
tire court declared a recess until this
morning az 80 o'clock.