The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-04-03
Attorneys Contest Findngs q tie
Late Grand Jury.
Road FUND WARRANT CASES.
OpeaoA DeGsss JsAge ssFe'
nsts fer Js1ge Dessss-
asssss, ssbpeesse1 - ne De-
1erAssss, Vet Allowed - Testify
-C~svt assl6s TAat Defense HAD
EBestea 60 Proceed - A0aavfts.

The attack upon the indictments 81 the
late superior court grand Jury was opened
yesterday In Judge Moore's court. and vas
a auinfette Of lawyers representing = ma
jority OF the defendants indicted in the
county road swindie cases. Only two Of
the attorneys FOR the defense had spoken
when O'clock came around. 10 Judge
Moore adjourned the hearing until Monday
morning.
The attack Is made By motions to set
aside the indictments found against Levi
g. Smith and w. H. Heaton for alleged
forgery: the same defendants. for alleged
false pretenses: Robert Gouriey. for alleged
faiss pretenses: W. Fl. Heaton and County
Commissioners James Fl. Boyce. for al
legged false pretenses. Heaton and F. q.
Kinney. for alleged false pretenses; and
Heaton and James Bracket. for alleged
false pretenses. John r. Dore. Richard
Win@or John II. Powell John Keiieher
appeared for the defendants and made the
motion. and 3. D. King. one OF the special
counsel who represented the state before
the grand jury. will support the states
side OF the case.
The principal feature Of the hearing was
the refusal OF Judge Moore to allow Her
bert l.. Bruce. J. r. MeEiroy. John b.
Hart and Timothy Ryan TO testify orally
I'm support OF the motions to set aside the
indictments. The substance OF the courts
ruling was that the defendants had elected
To proceed In the attack by afadayiis ana
that II II were true the defendants ai-
legged. that the four witnesses world nCt
make affidayits. there was no remedy and
their testimony could not be used Inc
four witnesses are said to have testified
| before the grand jury. and the defend
ants urge the objection that their names
are not Endorsed on the indictments.
Another point taken by the defendants
| Was that the afnaavits of Foranaa Speer
and Hippsiyfe Hofrmyer. members OF the
srana jury could not be used at the hear
| ing Ter the reason that their Jurors oath
forbade the m to dlvnIge proceedings In the
Jury room Upon this question Judge
Moore reserved his decision. and the hear
ine went or by the reading OF affidavits
on both sides
John r. Dore began the speech-making
for tie defendants. In his argument he
touched first upon the alleged fatal ornis-
sion Of the state to lndorsc upon the in
dictments the names OF all the witnesses
examined before the grand jury. He con-
tended that a preponderance OF the evil
dence before the court showed that other
persons had been present and testified.
Next he showed how In the opinion OF the
defendants. the indictments were not prop
erly filed. The endorsement made BY the
Ming clerk. he said. was only narration
or the fact that the papers were nled.
and the clerks file stamp itself was alb
sent.
Then Mr. Dore touched upon the pres
ence of the special counsel in the grand
Jury room He called attention TO the
fact that the orders Of Judge Benson APP
pointing the special counsel referred 10
Mr. King and Mr. Vance as special prose
cutors'' while they had signed themselves
in drawing the Indictments as special
counsel for the state This, Mr. Dore
thought. was q fatal variance invalidaiing
the indictments
The last point argued by Mr.. Dore was
that the grand jury was Illegally drawn.
He stated that while the law said the 500
names OF the grand jury list should be
selected by the board Of county commits
sloners and certified by the clerk OF the
board. the record showed that the names
had been drawn merely by the board
rot specifying what heard. and had been
certified TO by f.. II. Eyenson. the county
auapor and ex-otfieio clerk of the board.
not as clerk. but as auditor Further
more said NJ. Dore. the record showed
that the jury was drawn by the sheriff.
auditor and county clerk. but did not
show that the court was present. as re-
auired by law.
Milo A. Root was the next lawyer 10
argue the motions. He devoted himself
3 20 showing that Prosecuting Attorney Nc
Elrny WAS at all times ready and willing
10 appear before the grand jury. az was
shown by his written protests against be-
Ing excluded by the court.
AT the close of Mr. Roots argument the
cour; took an adjournment unsH Mon
day morning.