The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-07-23

the paisce Department. which for months
had been town talk. and put forth another
defense. ss1ch ~ had never been heard OF
before .n the courts OF King county. ai-
ways prone TO allow criminals fullest op-
portunssy 70 prove their innocence
In substance the murterers lawyers ad-
vanced the absurd theory that their client
through being arrested By . police c9ncef
on the information % q third party and
without warrant had been subjected TO
technical assault; and battery and was
therefore entitled TO resist unto death
Such they claimed he was doing when
he shoe down the unfortunate Wells.
And Judge Jacoess Influenced either BY
mawkish sympathy for Q young criminal
or biased hY unreasonfng hate OF the seat
tie police. gave the defense his judicial
approval
From the beginning Of the trial to the
end he ruled. II - said. constantly against
the prosecution. He shut out evidence
that Prosecuting Attorney McEroy and
his deputy. Mr.. Hart. commended was clear
~ competent and admitted evidence IN
favor OF Phillips that the state strenuousay
contended was wholly incompetent The
states principal Witnesses. naturally. were
police officers The record In the Phillips
case shows that they were sternly re-
pressed while on the witness stand
L1steneo to Theories.
But TO each word of argument advanced
by Phillips lawyers In support of their
position the court gave greatest attention
and listened to fine spun theories as to
the right OF the murderous half-breed to
take the life OF James Wells. who had
hardly spoken 10 him. while technically
resisting arrest at the hands OF Omcer
CnmminSs.
The fact that Cannin1s haA No
warrant. aAA that the evidence
against PHILIPPE In the burglary
case was only circumsta1tial. was
continually Aarped ON ~ the court.
and when the time came Judge Je-
cobs practically Instructed the Jury
that . criminal haa . natural
right to shoot down an o0cer Of the
law attempting 20 arrest him with
out . warrant A. was the eennen
remark of the bar at the time.
Judge Jacobs Instructions uDoA the
law Of arrest and insanity In the
Phillips case were "msdeis Of In
accuracy"
A Verdict Of Mansla1ghter.
Every lawyer knows that the average
juror Is strongly inclined to follow any
bias Of the trial Judge In reaching YER
Z
April q, 1898. brought In a verdict Of man.
slaughter after celebrating from II
O'Clock In the morning until In the at
ternoon. A few weeks later the court
imposed a sentence OF eleven years and
a fine Of 81. 600 1t was within his power
to impose a sentence of twenty years In
the penitentiary and a fine OF $500. Did
the evidence in the Phillips case show
that there were any extenuating cfrcum-
al I'm
Judge Jacobs knows.
The following IL an extract from the
Post-Inteiligencer's account OF the Phil
lips murder trial published on April 80.
1925. and containing a summary OF the
courts Instructions:
'If you find from all Of the evidence
that the officer was not justified In max
ing the arrest. officer Wells, to whom he
turned the defendant over. was not tusti-
fed in OBTAINING him. and when the de-
PENDANT killed Wells 1t was not murder
in either the first or second degrees. but
manslaughter only.
These are the instructions asked by the
defense and given by the court Taken
in connection with the courts instructions
on the authority of police officers In max
ing arrests, II Is evident that the jury dis
regarded the insanity theory OF the de-
Tense. and found. in effect, that Officer
Phillips when he was found proving
through the halls OF the Price hotel
Said the court to the jury: "A police
officer has the right to arrest without
warrant a person accused or charged with
the commission of a felony, II he has rea-
sonable ground to believe. and does. in
fact. believe, that a felony has been actu-
ally committed. before he can make the
able ground and probable cause for be-
iieving that the person whom he arrests
committed the felony which he has prob
able cause TO believe was actually COM
mitted. These two prohaOie causes con-
curing. he can arrest legally without a
warrant. The law does not give the OIL
Ger the right 10 arrest without a warrant
simply because somebody requests or asks
him to do So simple request without
anything else appearing does not amount
to probable cause. such a doctrine would
destroy all responsibility on the part OF
officers"
The court then announced the doctrine
that no officer has the right to arrest for
a misdemeanor unless the misdemeanor
was committed or attempted to be com
mitted within his view. without war
rant.
III the arrest is Illegal" said the court,
that fact does not authorize the arrested
person 10 kin the arresttng officer: but II
the person is innocent of the offense for
which he Ia arrested. then. If he kills the
officer, the presumption is that such kill
ing is manslaughter. II malice, however
either express or implied, exists on the
part Of the slayer. II viii be murder In
the second degree. II the killing had the
NSpt&sissHtb iAaiElit- OF ptNfNFsfttAtion ana
elaboration. IS wei malice. II would
be murder In the first degree, provided the
killing was purposefv done
IAN unlawful or Illegal arrest liz at ieas;
continuing assault. and. IL the person 10
innocent such invasion Of his personal
liberty Is what creates the presumption
that the killing Is involuntary mansiaugh-
ter"
Unfortunate Position Of Police.
Is II strange. after reading these in
structions, that the Seattle police hesitate
20 arres. any criminal. or tina; criminals
DO not fear the Seattle police
II Is notorious fact that the criminal
element 81 Seattle processes TO recognize
Judge Jacobs as - firm friend as against
the police. IT has not been many months
since a bowling mob In the Tenderloir
district surrounded policeman who was
attempting to arrest a man without a
warrant. and with yells Of XIII the d,
policeman. Jacobs is with us" alyslos,
forced the prisoners release
The records Of the police fers~tna.,.