Payette enterprise. (Payette, Canyon Co., Idaho) 1909-1935, 1920-10-21
COUNTY ATTORNEY
MAKES STATEMENT
TO THE PEOPLE
OF PAYETTE COUNTY

TO THE PEOPLE
OF PAYETTE COUNTY
There is a well recognized rule
of law that when a witness makes a
false statement all other statements
made by such witness stand for
naught unless corroborated by COM
petent testimony This is, no doubt.
rule that can be applied to any
statement deliberately made for a
specific and definite purpose.
The following statement appears
in the Fruitland Banner in its issue
of October IS, 1920:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
NOW UNDER FIRE
Now that County Attorney r. E.
Haynes is up for reelection his rec
ord for the past two years is being
somewhat scrutinized. 1t seems
that several criminal cases that were
on the docket a year or so ago, were
thrown out of court, it is claimed,
some on technicalities, by the papers
being improperly drawn and others
because these cases were not prop
erly conducted.
"One case in particular was boot
logger who was arrested and his car
confiscated and later sold by the
sheriff. 1t seems that the man put up
a $3.50 cash bond and left the auto
mobile that sold for $40O, but on
learning that the case had not been
properly conducted came back and
recovered his bond money ond also
the car which the county was forced
to redeem and turn over TO him. The
-county not only lost the $3.50 but
all the expense OF conducting the
sale and other expenditures resulting
therefrom'
The facts involved in the actions
referred to in the above article dis,
close one of two things: First, that
the author of the article has will
fully and Intentionally made mis-
statement; Second, or that the au-
thor thereof is inexcusably ignorant
of the facts as disclosed by the court
records of this county.
The Editor of the Banner was
formerly the Ex-Officio Clerk of the
District Court of Payette County and
is therefore presumed to be COM
petent and able to obtain from the
records the things necessary to en-
able him to make a true and cor
rect statement.
The first case referred to in the
above article was that of the State
of Idaho versus William Allen, in
which case Allen was arrested for
the violation of the Prohibitory Law
and his Ford Runabout was confis>
Gated, sold at public auction for the
sum of four hundred fifteen ($415) !
dollars Allen plead guilty to the Of
fense as charged, was fined two hun
dred fifty ($25O) dollars and sent
enced to thirty 600 days in Jail. He
Ddlu lUt llHts SSi NCu lllS Nilllt III jan
and the county got the $415.0O from
the sale of the said automobile.
The other case, assume to which
the article refers, was the case of
the State of Idaho versus S. Come
gys, in which case this man was ar
rested for the violation of the Pro>
hibitory Law, his car confiscated and
he was released upon giving a cash
bond of $4,000 which bond was sub
sequently forfeited and Payette coun
ty got the cash. Later on it developed
that the vendor of this car held the
ownership of the car on a title own
ership note and instituted replevin
suit for the purpose of obtaining
possession of the car, which case was
tried in the District Court before
Judge Varian, and under the law and
facts of the case, obtained judgment
in his favor and took possession of
his car.
Now. let us make the footings.
The Banner, article would have the
county lose $115O.OO, the expenses
of conducting the sale and other ex-'
penditures resulting therefrom,
whereas. as a matter of fact. the
county received in actual cash $14t5
out of the two cases and retained
every cent of it.
r. r. HAYNES,
Prosecuting Attorney for
Payette County, Idaho.