The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-05-23
A QUESTION Of vERAC|IY.
MIR. HART CLASHES WITH JUDGE
CAM IN LARCENY CASE.
Former Accuses the Justice of Al
tering His Evidence After Having
Assembled the Witness stand
HATFIELD Woman II Convicted.

Notwithstanding that Deputy Prosecut-
ing Attorney Hart says he had his case
materially weakened by the refusal of
Municipal Judge Cam to testify to a state
Of alleged facts which it is claimed he ad-
mitted to be true previous to going upon
the witness stand, a jury in Judge Ben
sons court yesterday afternoon convicted
Lottie Hatfield. woman of the town, of
the crime of larceny During the course
of the trial highly strained state of af-
fairs developed between Judge Cam, who
was a witness in the case, and the deputy
prosecuting attorney
Mr.. Hart stated in open court that Judge
Cam had. only few hours before he as
cended the witness stand, told him he
would testify to statements made to him
by the defendant tending TO prove her
guilt. After he had been sworn the judge
so modified his statement that IL was Of
little value to the prosecution.
Lotte Hatfield was charged with having
stolen SEQ from John Marshall. a logger.
The woman was arraigned and given a
preliminary hearing before Judge Cam,
who bound her over to the superior court
for trial. According to Mr.. Harris conten-
ton, shortly after she was bound over she
approached Judge Cam with the state
ment that II the court would accept a fine
of 500 she would plead guilty and have the
prosecution dropped. Mr.. Hart stated to
Judge Benson yesterday when the case
told him only yesterday morning in his
private office that the woman had person
ally solicited him to take this course in the
matter.
When Judge Cam was called to the wit
ness stand he completely nonplussed the
prosecution by contenting himself with the
declaration that some third person had
approached him In the defendants behalf
with the overture which Mr.. Hart states
positively the justice told him was made
by the woman herself.
All efforts on the part Of the prosecuting
attorney to refresh the witness memory
az to the purported statement claimed to
have been made only few hours before
proved of no avail. The responses which
pounded were not responsive except in
that the witness averred that he had been
approached by third party, and not by
the defendant herself.
This person approached me-" said
Judge Cam, with a view to having the
prosecution dropped upon the payment of
a fine"
What did this person say the defendant
would do II II met with your sancton?'
Queried Mr.. Hart.
THE gentleman who was talking to me
wanted the prosecution dismissed
But how was the dismissal to be
brought about? Was the woman to plead
well. he wanted the prosecution drop
ped was the only response which the eff
forts of Mr.. Hart to prove a confession of
guilt were rewarded with.
THAT is all" said the deputy prosecut-
ing attorney.
81 want to explain" began Judge
Cam.
THAT is ALL" came the announcement
for q second time.
But II your honor please persisted
Judge Cam.
You may stand aside. Call your mex,
Witness" said Judge Benson and Judge
Cam left the courtroom obviously embar-
raised.
Shortly after 6 o'clock the jury in the
case returned into court with verdict OF
guilty of petty larceny, a modification oil
the charge originally alleged in the infor-
nation.