The Weiser semi-weekly signal. (Weiser, Washington Co., Idaho) 1904-1911, 1904-10-29
Another Inquiry.

ney of Washington County, Idaho
Dear Sir Reading in the Worl,
of your record as prosecutor of thi
county, we became curious and wen
to the county records and looked vi
the criminal docket for the time yol
have been in office. That we may asl
ask you questions understandings,
upon the matter disclosed by tina
docket, we will briefly enumerate the
cases we find there.
State VS.. Eber Scranton, assault
with intent to kill. Information sci
aside as faulty.
State VS.. Robert White, two cases
assault with deadly weapon the
charge in each. Fined fifty dollars
and costs in each case. A queer
thing in a felony. Was not it fact
that the main witness for the prose
cution was allowed to get out of the
country?
State VS.. Eber Scranton, assault
with deadly weapon convicted and
sentenced to six months in the state S
prison. This was practically the
same as the first enumerated case
State VS.. l. X. Wait ct al, malici-
Gus mischief; dismissed at the cost of
the state.
State VS.. Ed Smellzer and Charles
Boyles, robbery convicted. Smell
ger received IA years in the state
prison, practically on account of the
story he told ON the stand. Boyles
received much shorter sentence.
State vs.. Gus Hotchkiss, assault
with deadly weapon this is some
times known as the bride bit case,
because Hotchkiss hit man over the
head with bride in quarrel. Con
victed one year in the peniter tiary.
is it not true that in each of the
above cases, except the cases of Wait
ct al. and Robert White the men were
practically friendless and had no de-
Tense except nominal defense furn-
ished by the court? You do not
really count that defense, do you?
State VS.. Tim Driscoll comes next
on the docket, grand larceny. This
was quite an expensive case for the
county, one witness being retained
here for some months. After the evil
dence of the state was all in the court
directed a verdict of acquittal. Why
did you not bring an information
against some one in that case for
changing brands, it would have come
nearer being the case than grand lar
cenyY
State VS.. Thomas Stoddard, assault
with intent to commit murder; ac-
quittal.
State VS.. w. D. Lovejoy comes
next. Hmbezzlement, acquittal. =
Why did you not prosecute Mr..
Loyejoy n charge where he had not
already paid back the money! Why
did you take case where the money
had been refunded when there we're
several cases against him where no
leparatiou had been NADER The case
of the Catlin brothers claim against
Hall wherein the money had been alb
sorbed by Lovejoy, for instance.
State VS.. Crawford, grand larceny.
This is the case, if we we're informed
right, wherein half -witted boy
knocked some coin out of the hand of
another in wagon. He was defend
ed by counsel appointed by the state
and sentenced to short term in the
penitentiary.
State VS.. Peter Christianson. This
is the sheepherder who sold some of
the sheep in his charge. He was in
duced to plead guilty.
State VS.. Frank Turner and Rem
Vain, robbery; sentenced each to
seven years in the state prison. In
this case you were assisted by Mr..
Frank Harris at the expense of the
county, were you not? As this case
is now before the supreme court, IL is
too early to say just how effective the
prosecution really Is. 1t was one of
the most expensive cases in this
county for years
There are two cases against Frank
Buck, forgery. He was practically
friendless aud plead guilty.
George Russell also plead guilty to
the charge of larceny OF robbery.
lp the case Of State W. Albert
Dpifner, rape, defendaDt l. convicted
aud sentenced 10 twenty years Ia the
pepiteptlary, Ia this case you were
also assisted w other oounsel, we're
you poff We haze Leon told that
eliifeps employed NJ lseltham 40 as.
9ls you This case D. 10 he appealed.
p u noi y ~ u VIZ De Impossible
~ ''1 lps' bow eheoiife Vac ihai
lfNferullQn
H'H'f l1 lienl} Ao0le, euheffle
N''N 'if llfn4 fnilly lhele 90
II.I IIII I|II I..I|.. ....| II.I