The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-12-14
WARRANT FIGHT COMMENCES
MUCH DEFENDS on THE OUTCOME
OF THE FIRST CASE.
In 4 Preliminary Skirmish ON the
Admission Of . Warrant ~ Evil
dence. the PlafntiA scores . Vic
tory - Noted Lawyers Present.

Special Dispatch TO the Post-TntelIIgsncer.
TACOMA, Dec. 1s.-The big attraction
in legal circles here today was the open
ing Of the hrst Of the warrant suits
against the city, in which the New York
Security and Trust Company holding some
sl5e.v" Of city warrants, is piaInii9. A
majority OF the prominent legal talent of
the city attended the days session through
out Some are directly identified in the
case at bar. others being interested in other
suits OF a Ike nature soon 10 come UP for
trial
Arrayed on behalf Of the plaintiff COM
pany were William Hamilton. of the legal
firm Of Hornbiower. Taylor. Hamilton q
Byrne. OF New York city. who is known
as an expert In municipal warran, mat
ters; w. II. Boyle and Charles Richard
son, OF the firm OF Boyle & R.cha rdson
J. A.. Shack!eford. formerly city attorney.
and ID. j. Crowley. Of Crowley Il Gross
cup. For the city Judge W. IL. Pritchard.
now city attorney. his assistant, Walter
Harvey. and Councilman John Leo a
prominent local attorney named to act as
associate counsel. were present. Beside
these attorneys Mayor Nickeus. who Is in
way experimenting the citys course In
these suits. paid special attention TO all the
proceedings.
The case was formally opened by the
plaintiff presenting one of its big batch
OF warrants for admission as evidence.
With this came objection on the part of
the city. and argument on points in Issue
occupied the balance of the day The city
held that the Endorsement on the warrant
transferring Il TO the plaintiff company
must be proven. Counsel argued that in
presenting the warrants in evidence II de-
volyed upon Plaintiffs to prove their ALE
cations. n other words, the burden of
proof as 10 the validity of the transfer of
the warrant fell upon the holders Of such
warrant, The city admitted the validity of
the official signatures on the warrant, in
Guiding that of ex-Treasurer George w.
Boggs, but objected to the court admitting
the warrant as valid claim against rms
city without the holders proving by evil
dence how they gained possession of the
paper, and also furnishing proof Of the
signature going to show transfer indorse-
ment.
This point was argued pro and con for
the greater part of the day. Authorities
galore were cited by both plaintiff and de-
PENDANT. and late this afternoon Judge
Carroll decided for plaintiff. The court
called attention TO state supreme court de-
cisons 10 bear him out n his finding. AS
whole the fight Of the first day thus end
ed in victory for the plaintiff who won
the first important contention.
The second warrant introduced, after the
city had taken exception TO the ruling on
the first warrant, was objected to on
new grounds. IL being urged by the city
that this warrant was merely a voucher
ordered by the council for the payment of
certain labor account. and was not in
tended 10 have been transferred. nor was
BILE in any manner. After argument on
this point the court decided to admit the
warrant In evidence professionally. Judge
Carroll explained that he would admit IL
and allow exception, and at the end Of the
introduction OF this warrant evidence would
hear final argument on the questions at
stake, thus getting the case moSe COM
pact and avoiding long and unnecessary ar
guments as each warrant should be offered
individually.
Thus far the hearing indicates it will re-
quire probably three days TO do away with
the preIiminaries, which are necessary be-
fore argument can be heard on the merits
Of the case. 1t is of interest TO note the
special attention given 10 the trial today
by attorneys who are in any way identi-
fled with other cases of similar nature
Such lawyers sat out The session, making
note Of every important feature of the
hearing. Visitors benches were occurred
by men who are not strangers 10 the city
warrant middle, many having some direct
interest in the eventual outcome of the
present litigation.