Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1906-06-25
HE ALLEGES ARSON
AN ELMA FARMER COMPLAINS OF
COUNTY ATTORNEY BONER.
Ed. Lambert, Whose Barn was Burn
ed, Makes Charges of Arson, But
the Prosecuting Attorney Refuses
to Take Action, Leaving Lambert
Unable to Obtain Insurance.

Ed. Lambert, we'll known farmer,
residing near Elma, has we'll grounded
kick coming over the refusal OF the coun-
ty attorney to prosecute the person he
alleges burned his barn.
According to Mr.. Lambert, his barn
was burned August 81, 1905, entaiing a
loss Of over $1,000, upon which he hi d
no insurance. and ne charges the Is. year.
old daughter Of a neighbor with the
offense. He and his hired man we're
returning from the field when they saw
the girl going from the house to the barn
by route that caused her to climb IA
fence; that few minutes later they dis.
covered that part of the barn to be on
the barn and run toward her one. He
reported the case to the child's parents,
who declined to beieve..it.' and later to
Deputy County Attorney Mcneil. who
went to the scene and examined Mr.. and
Mrs. Lambert, the hired man and a
young lady from Aberdeen who was visit
ing them. Mr.. McNeill pronounced it a
clear case, and said he would report it to
Mr.. Boner when the latter would return
from Portland.
The next day, Lambert alleges, the
father of the girl gave the hired man $25
and agree to pay him $50 more to leave
50 as pot to appear as witness in the
case. In support of this allegation, Mr.
Lambert has written statement from
chum of the hired man, who is available
as witness, to the effect that the man
employed to go away told him OF the
agreement.
He also has the sworn affidavit of
schoolmate Of the accused girl, stating
that the latter confessed to her that she
burned the barn because she was mad at
Lambert's daughter. Lambert makes
the charge under oath, and has the atli
davit OF the hin man, ard the two
statements agree as to the discovery OF
the fire, and the flight. OF the girl from
the scene.
Ever since the fire Mr.. Lambert has
been trying to have the county attorney
take the matter up, but was met. with a
flat refusal by Mr. Boner to take the case
into court. Last March he appealed to
the attorney general, who promised to
investigate the case, but later wrote Mr.
Lambert that Mr.. Boner had requested
him not to interfere in the case. Mr..
Lambert then proposed to engage an at
tOrney and prosecute the action at his
own expense, but this Mr.. Boner would
not permit, saying that il it was attempt
ed he would appear and dismiss the case,
and there the matter stands ten month g
after the fire.
Mr.. Lambert dsclaims vindictiveness
in his desire to prosecute, but because OF
this fire and his belief that it was incen
diary, he finds himself unable to obtain
insurance. When he applies for insur-
ance he is aske if he was ever burned
out, and il he has cause to fear that Re
may be again, and is compelled to ans.
wer in the affirmative, and his risk is
declined. He holds that if the cas- e is
tried, and the testimony showsIhim and
the other witnesses to have been mis-
taken it will remove the insurance disa.
blity.
The case NJ. Lambert puts up appears
pretty strong. He has the testimony of
himself and wife. the hired man, who
has returned, and the lady visitor as to
the fire, and an affidavit as to the con-
fession, as we'll as a witness as to the
bribing OF the hired man to remove, and
it is extremely difficult to account for the
stand taken by the sworn prosecutor OF
the county in the case.