The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-02-22
THEY CHARGE II 70 KEAIOH.
n0BERIsox's SUIT AGAINST KING
COUNTY Now ON TRIAL.
Work for the Gounty Not Author
ICED BY Two Of the Commisslon
ers-hr. Heaton ON the stand

TT suit Of :. j. Robertson against King
ccsnfy which involves the al.sgea crook-
s1ress u ex-C0uaty Commissioner Hes
ton among other things. - Oh trial before
Juagc Jacobs h3 su}t Is to recover an
i've assigned Claims fer WORK done on
county roads b. other persons for work
esne ~ Robertson himself and FOR eIar.-
ases by breach q I contract for read
building between Rob risoa and tn. cour-
Is, TIE Gotal amount sought 10 lie re-
eogefs6 being Slaz9.
TIE claims aow IN suit were not paid
by the county BY advice OF the expaTGs
who Investigated into the raad warrant
scandal. and wao reported these claims.
VIII many others. 80 being entirely j.
rezylar II is the contention OF the coua-
" In the salt that The WORK alleged by
Robertson ~ have been done ~ the rrcn
wAo assigned their Claims to MIN Il aoas
al all. wnicl the county Gees not aeani.
was not authorized by ine county coraIn.s-
Sis1ess. That the work done by Robertson
himself was done on = private road and
that the contract between Robertson and
me county Tor building roads was rot at-
thvrized ~ the board. The county ais,
claims that Robertson cannot recover ~,
grounds Of public policy. for the reason
ina he Is now. afsd VAS q the t!.ae tna
FIVE claims In sulf were assigned IL him
b. ~ ~
he Work WIS performed. or alleged to
have been performed. and authorized il
10 BE- done. aftersard certifying the claims
to b. correct as Tp.a4 supervisor. ard then
taking assignments 81 them In aoiaz ia
ills county contends that Robertson
placed himself IN al Inconsistent position.
and should suffer the consequences.
The trial of the Gaze began yesterday
morning. Robertson testified tina; tia.
Wark nal fasr
his compliant and as 10 The lack OF au-
thofization. he said that while there wa
no authority given 10 him by the board
as body, ne Was authorized By Heaton,
who told him that the board would ratifv
any Of his acts regarding road WORK in
the Third commissioners district. from
which Heaton Was elected: that thls was
the agreement between the commissioners.
Beat0H was called as a witness and fe..-
tired az great length He sutystslaflate.l
the statements OF Robertson. and stated
that authority 10 make contracts ard
order work done ia his district on benels
u the full board had been de!egafel %
him by Commissioners Nickerson and
Gssch.
The ass'gnors OF the claims were also
called, and with two exceptions gave tox-
tlmony eoEroborating the statements 81
Robertson that the work had been done
as alleged and the claims assigned. The
TWO exceptions we're Los Feger and Theo-
dare Leifheim. both OF whom testified that
their names had been signed 10 several =
the assignments by other persons Rob
eftson's lawyers attempted to get an adj
mission from then that They had author
izee W 7. ScJrry to lssign these nartic-
u.ar claims for them. LIT with only par
tai success.
No resolution or order az the whole
hoard Of commissioners authorizing tie
performance of any Of the work or exacu-
ton u kobe"tSons contract was intro
ageed in evidence yesterday. and &. IS
Prosecuting Attorney McEiray's conton-
ton that only such an order or resolution
Vii enable Robertson % recover The
other commissioners. Il Is said. VIII tes-
t1y TIA; M arrangement was ever uladf
ny which iseaton WAS allowed 70 AUTHOR
izr work IN his district and that they uat
step 70 such actions on h.s part AS soon
as they discovered wha. he was doing
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Fulton q
assisting In the trial OF the ease.