The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-10-01
M MONTGOMERY FREE.
- CONSUMES ONLY A FEW MN.
mxs n REACHING A VERDICT.
Attorneys O0ce De.
aaeves Judge Jacobs 10 Largely
nespsnstbie for the Woman Es-
.a,sng-Rose stu Enjoys Liberty.

n sook jury thirty minutes last even
- 10 aequIs Jessie Montgomery, charged
~ ne e.nisezzlement OF sgys from a wo-
20 Of her Class named Fern Forest The
"a occupied two days In Judge Jacobs
~zs,s The result Is accepted with res
Nussssn by the prosecuting attorneys Of
-. wfsca from first 10 last, has insisted
-, the story tod b. the prosecuting wit
sssa warranted prosecution for grand
kscsny OF the latter crime the Mont
sasr<ry woman and Dick Rose. her CODE
fsscant who bunkoed Sheriff Meyer with
kogas bend. we're once convicted. Judge
Jacobs set the verdict aside. however, and
ee6e~ed q prosecution on the other charge
Ard behold sne result say Prosecuting At
,orrey McElroy and his deputies
ne acguittai OF the Montgomery woman
I'll got tend 20 heal the wide breach be-
ssesn the criminal court and the prosecut-
~ attorneys office. Tie TWO branches Of
= county fusion administration have been
~ .09geraead5 over this case. among 9TH
= ever since the FIRST trial. At one time
- prosecuting attorney contemplated ap-
nnaIing from the courts ruling setting
sntde the first verdict, and the prosecution
foe endorsement was continued under pro-
1T. The prosecuting attorneys office
Claims that il was a simple case OF heads.
/ win; tails. you lose" anyway. Tina,
upon the same testimony, practically.
which la lury's opinion had Justified
e1nyiction Of crime differing only tech
Tally from the other, the defense was per-
lifted to argue to the jury In the last trial
hat the first crime OF which the defend
ants had once been convicted, was commit
20. and thereby bring about an aequittal.
The prosecution claims that the argu-
nen. made by Attorney Humphries yes
Rfday was all through 10 the effect that
fAer4 was never any in,ruSiing OF the
money TO Rose ard the Montgomery wo-
nan by Fern Forcs. while the latter was
intoxicated. and that IL any offense WAS
A. nd tas I'm he
former trial. the prosecution claims that
the direct contrary WAS argued so success
fully that the cour. was brought TO that
yiew Of the case.
Fern Forests testimony was that she
ave the gold to Rose and the silver to the
woman. and that X was never returned.
Tie Montgomery woman testified that the
money was placed under Fern Forests pill
ee!yed back from Rose, and that IL IL was
stolen neither she tthe witness) nor Rose
knew Of II. The Forest woman was in
toxieated when the money changed hands.
The only witness called for the defense
Yesterday was the defendant herself. The
concluding Witnesses for the state were De
teesiyes Cudfhee and Barbee.
Tie incident OF the proceedings was
when Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Hart
interrupted Attorney HUMPHREYS In the lat
tsr'g argument to the jury 10 ask ques-
ton 10 this effect:
Admitting II 10 be true, Judge Humph
res, that This woman. Fern Forest, gave
the money to Rose and this woman To be
saanted, and that It was not given back.
% you claim that this would not constt-
,aie emhezz'ement?"
Attorney Glenn. Mr.. HUMPHREYS coli
league, objected vehemently 10 the ques-
usn and would not allow an answer. The
court refused also TO require the lawyer
to answer. Mr.. Hart remarked upon COM
mercing his argument that there would be
no use in talking about law to the jury
with the question unanswered. and pro-
ceeded 10 deal with the facts. as Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney Fulton had done In
his opening statement
To this remark and 10 references by Mr..
Hart TO the former trial and the duty OF
the court to instruct with the result OF
that trial In view. Attorneys HUMPHREYS
and Glenn warmly excepted. Their ruff
fed plumage was smoothed down. however.
when the verde; came In. They defended
the woman under direction OF the court.
they say, without prospect OF remunera-
ton. and are heartily pleased with the re-
suit Judge Jacobs compiimented them on
their work after the rendition or the YER
diet.
Roses whereabouts are still mystery:
bench warrant for his arrest was issued
BY Clerk Holloway yesterday.
The statement made that Judge Hum
phrtes and Attorney Glenn admitted see
Ing Rose subsequent to release from jail
on the forged bond. is not correct. Al
though Rose claimed to have seen them
they deny that they ever saw him, though
they were expecting him 10 call upon them