The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-03-30

The late King cos.z;y grand jury has
beer placed on the defensive in the eoun-
~ road fund fraud prosecutions. Yes'er-
day In the case ot ex-county Commits
sioner W III. Heaton and County Com
missioner James Fl. Boyce. charged with
obtaining money under false pretsnses.
Frank w. Speer. the foreman. and Hippo
iy,e Hofrrnyer, Amember OF the jury,
made and filed Efptte superior court am
davis controserting the affidaviis OF
Boycs In support OF his motion 10 ouasl
the indictment against himself and Hea-
Ton. in which they take issue with Boyce
on statements made Ia his affidavit
!. The most startling allegation made by
the grand 1urymen in Their affldaviss Is
III answer to Boyees objection that Prose
cutting Attorney McEiroy was rot pres
enf In the grand jury room 10 aid the jury
fin Its deliberations. Speer and Hoffmyer
soiennIy declare that McElroy never at
any time SO far as either OF them ever
heard of came to the grand jury room
and demanded and was refused adrnis-
sion during the investigation OF the road
fund frauds.
In his affidavit Boyce goes into the mi
nute details Of the proceedings by which
Judge Benson excluded McElroy from
mendatiou OF the jury ana employed Spe-
ciai Counsel S. ID. King and 7. NJ. Vance
to investigate the county road fund scan
dais and tells how McElroy made u writ
ten demand upon the court for recognl-
ton OF his right to prosecute the alleged
swindlers.
MeE,roy regards 1t as pretty good
joke that members OF the grand jury
which turned him down so hard when he
tad 70 tul urs1 tn ft.. srx-a sisr.a-
ton appear and By implication aiiege that
tho only reason he was not allowed TO
coma In and displant the special counsel
was that he didn't come to the door OF
the jury room and knock for admission
and be formally refused IL not admitted.
In this humorous view oS the situation
the attorneys for Boyee and Heaton con-
cur,
Besides alleging in his affidavit that
the prosecuting attorney was not pres
emit. Boyce In his affidavit stated tina. Spe-
ciai Counsel King and Vance. who were
gentlemen in nowise entitled to be pres
ent.' were in fac; present and assisted in
the finding OF the indictment. Another OBJ
lection Boyce urged was that the names
OF only three witnesses. two OF them be-
ing Douglas Young and Fighting Bob"
Wilson. who exported the auditors books.
were Endorsed on the indictment, AMI that
McElroy. his deputy. John Il. Hart, Attor-
neys Roger s. Greene and w. H. White,
Judge Jacobs James Burgoose and 9TH
ers, gave testimony before the jury reia-
tive TO the Indictment. and that the In
dictmeni is void because their names also
are not Endorsed upon IL. Further. Boyce
stated that the grand Jury was a biased.
prejudss,ial aad partisan body.
Speer ard Hoffmyey in behalf of the
grand jury. resent thsse imputa.ions es-
pecially the last. They make affidavit
that when the Indictment against Boyce
and the indictment against all OF the 9TH
ers called TO account by the grand
jury. were found and voted upon. neither
King nor Vance was present in the jury
room. The witnesses alleged by Royce
who have been examined in his case the
grand jury foreman and his fellow sffiant
say. were not called 10 testify about
Boyce's alleged gisdsetls: and as for bias.
prejudice and partisansaip. Sreer and
Hn1nysr say that such things never in
nuenced the jury
The affidaYits in the other road fund
cases viii he substantially The same AS In
Boyce's ease. both on the part OF the de-
Tense and the prosecution.
w. A. Burtenshaw. ore az those indic.-
ed FOR alleged fraud. has been given until
April 10 plead.