The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-02-13
Judge Jacobs Tells How Smith
Case Was Dismissed.
Is1T WAS M'ELRoys REQUEST.
The Written Statement Of the PROSE-
cutting Attorney Wayrmmsed the
Courts Acffon-Ftnal Demurrer
Never Argaed-Defects In the Ia
Court, but We're sot RemeAied.

Under the conviction that the brisf
statement from him Published yesterday
morning might be misconstrged in certain
seaarteFs, Judge Jacobs last night re.ue;-
! sntly consented to give a resume OF court
.ection in connection with the Heaton and
Smith cases To Post-Inteuigencer re-
norter he said;
THE history Of the Smith case and IN.
Aeaton case and one or Two other CASES
IN the criminal department Is about as
follows.
First. tie defendants were all Informed
against for forgery. The Heaton case
came up first for consideration There
WAS demurrer 10 the Information on the
ground that II stated no oyense known
30 the laws OF this state or under the
laws Of this state. The demurrer was set
down for argument. After argument the
court requested defendants counsel ana
the prosecuting attorney 10 furnish briefs
That request was duly complied wRh and
After due consideration BY the court the
demurrer was sustained. The prosecuting
attorney immediately gave notice Of ap-
.peai and took the case 10 the supreme
court. That court, after argument and
consideration. sustained my action with
cut any dissent. / intimates. In the writ
soen opinion, which was published at the
time In the Posf-Iateiiigsncsr that an
action or Information might be sustained
under the statutory provisions against
obtaining money OF property b. the use
81 false pretenses.
after the remittitur CANA down from
the supreme court the prosecuting attor-
ney filed an information against Smith In
accordance with my suggestion. That in
formation was femusred 10 by defend
ants counsel. After argument and fun
consideration OF the question involved the
A<.ffr uHa af fhk. int hot t1f
nation was defective, and IN a written
opinion. which was also published in the
PostIntelligencer. I stated that the In
formation 10 be sufficient ought 10 aisege
$ that the warrant, the possession Of which
, was obtained by defendant by alleged
FALSE pretenses. assput in circulation by
the defendant and subsequently paid BY
the county. / stated that IL the infcrma-
Wen contained these additional allegations
IN my Judgment IL would be sufficient.
"A new information, quite yaiuminous
in form containing these required aliega-
lions was filed by the prosecuting attor-
ney. and the defendant was arralgned
thereon. A demurrer was filed 10 ~hfs
new Information. but II was never called
20 my attention officially. or argued be-
! fore me. The argument or such demurrer
was postponed from time 10 time. at the
request Of the prosecuting attorney. and
che defendants counsel, aud before IL was
heard the ease was settled
1.-The prosecuting attorney. az sthe law
requires. flied with me written statems Ht
showing the defects I'm the law. and other
matters which had forced MIN 70 the coH~
clusion that &. would be better for the
county 10 settle with the defendant BY
his paying the full amount. together with
interest. OF all the money which he was
alleged 10 have wrnngfuly taken from
the county. Upon this statement ard the
payment OF the money he asked for a dis
nnisSai OF the action or prosecution. The
motion WIS granted. A court never
Knows anything about the facts in "a case
until they are developed upon the trial
This written statement Of the prosecuting
attorney. made from fun consideration
Of the facts as wei rs the law. Was ia
my Judgment sufficient 10 warrant the
action OK the court