119 Wash. 275 | Wash. | 1922
— The appellant was convicted of grand larceny. It was charged against him that, in King
He refused to plead when called upon so to do, and the plea of not guilty was entered for him by direction of the trial court. At the time of his arraignment, and thereafter on several occasions down until the commencement of the trial, the appellant, by special appearances, interposed and insisted upon what he terms special pleas in abatement and to the jurisdiction of the court. The refusal of the court to allow the special pleas has induced the appellant to make three assignments of error, which may be considered together.
Originally the appellant was charged with this same offense by a complaint filed in the justice of the peace court in Seattle. Not being in this state at that time, he was brought here by extradition proceedings. Prior to any preliminary examination by the justice of the peace, and while the appellant was in the custody of the sheriff of King county, he instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the superior court of that county. In his petition therein it was alleged in substance that the complaint upon which the governor of this state issued his requisition was unfounded in fact and law; that no crime had been committed; that the proceedings had been instituted for the collection of a debt; and that
Section 2109, Eem. Code (P. C. § 9162), provides for the pleas that may be interposed upon arraignment. They are, (1) a plea of guilty; (2) a plea of not guilty; and (3) a plea of former conviction or acquittal. In the case of a plea of acquittal, the statute requires that it designate the court and date of the judgment relied upon. The judgment in the habeas corpus- case relied on here- was not an acquittal on the merits, but only a discharge from the custody of the sheriff. It was not a discharge from the penalty of the crime and did not operate as an acquittal so as to bar a prosecution and trial on the merits. It shows on its face there was no investigation into the guilt or innocence of the accused. 16 C. J. 255, § 411, and cases cited; 16 C. J. 257, § 423; In re Milburn, 9 Peters (U. S.) 704,
Another assignment is that the court erred in refusing to permit the appellant to show good faith and an attempt to compromise before the commencement of the criminal proceedings. It is necessary to somewhat notice the manner in which he conducted his business for his principals. Policies issued by him were to be made out as follows: Policy, daily report, and his own agent’s daily record, at one time, the. two latter ones being carbon copies. In scores of cases his copies were false. He reported the fictitious records to the company and failed to report the policies actually issued. Those reported called for small premiums, while those actually issued called for large premiums that were collected by the appellant. Probably the most' of the policies issued by him were for short periods of time. Finally, he issued a policy to a mill company that was 'not reported until after the insured sustained a loss, seventeen days after the policy was issued. A special agent of the Philadelphia Underwriters came to defendant’s office about that time and found him missing. The defendant was not seen at his office thereafter. During the investigation that followed, the appellant being absent, it appears that relatives of his stated to the special agent of the insurance companies that they were able and willing to pay as high as
The refusal of the court to give appellant’s requested instructions numbered 1 to 5 has caused an assignment of error. They have received scant attention in the brief and oral argument on behalf of the appellant. They relate mostly to his erroneous theory of the law concerning the offer to compromise, and in other respects are incorrect expositions of the law applicable to the case.
There is no merit in the contention that a multiplicity of crimes is charged in the information. State v. Boone, 65 Wash. 331, 118 Pac. 46. Nor is there any
The motions to discharge the defendant upon the state’s evidence and for a directed verdict were properly denied. There was sufficient evidence under the rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases to justify the verdict. Also, the motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were properly denied, neither being supported by any argument distinct from other views of the case already discussed.
Judgment affirmed.
Parker, O. J., Tolman, Fullerton, and Bridges, JJ., concur.