Territory of Washington
County of Spokane} ss
In the District Court Fourth Judicial District holding terms at Spokane Falls.
The Territory of Washington
vs.
Ray Raymond
I S.C. Hyde being duly sworn on my oath depose and say: That I am prosecuting attorney for the District [?] acting Spokane County, Washington Territory, and that as such prosecuting attorney, I am charged with the duty of the prosecution of the above entitled action. That I make this affidavit because James Finch, the person names in the indictment in the above named action, as the person murdered was at the time of his death a stranger in the city of Spokane Falls, and had been an inhabitant of Spokane County, but a short time, and that there are now no friends or relatives of said James Finch living in Spokane County or within the knowledge of affiant to make this affidavit or to interest thence case[?] in the prosecution of this action.
Affiant further saith that he has read the affidavits of T.C. Griffitts, J. Kennedy Stout, Ray Raymond, Frederick Stanford, H.T. Caton, George F. Schorr, Charles Aldrich
Filed in support of the defendants motion for change of venue in this action, and knows the contents thereof. That affiant appeared as counsel and attorney for the Territory in all proceedings heretofore had in the prosecution of this action. That he was in the city of Spokane Falls, the place where the homicide occured out of which this action arises, at the time of the homicide. That he was then ever since has been and is now a resident of said city of Spokane Falls and has been a resident of said city and county for the past seven years. That affiant is well acquainted with the residents of said county of Spokane throughout the county and has personal acquaintance with a large share of them. That it is well known to all the people of Spokane County that this the public prosecutor therein, and as such officer is charged with the prosecution of all persons charged with crime. Affiant further saith that if excitement and prejudice against the defendant is this action existed in said county of Spokane, the same owing to affiant being the person charged with the duty of her prosecution, would have been as applicant verily believes, known and common to the affiant. That affiant knows of no excitement existing among the people of said county over and concerning said action and the homicide out of which said action grew and knows of no prejudice existing against said defendant other[?] then always attends the most ordinary homicide followed by a criminal charge. That at the time of the homicide there was no excitement in the city of Spokane Falls concerning the same and no prejudice against the defendant because thereof more than the actual facts concerning the same being known would naturally produce, that such prejudice as existed against defendant at the time of the homicide on account thereof in said city was not of much importance and extended to but a small share of the community, and applicant says that such prejudice has long since passed away and that the people of Spokane Falls now take little interest in this case and that they would now all wish that said defendant have a fair and just trial that during the present term of court not more than a dozen persons have ever mentioned the said defendant to this affiant, and they only incidentally or to inquire when this action would be tried.
Affiant further saith that at the general election held in Spokane County on the second day of November 1886, more than four thousand votes were cast in Spokane County, that there are now as affiant believes, more than twelve thousand people residing in said county. That affiant is informed by intelligent and truthful citizens residing at various places in Spokane County, outside of the city of Spokane County, of whom affiant has made inquiry, that the alleged facts relating to the said homicide are little known to the people of Spokane County who reside outside the limits of Spokane Falls, and that they have not formed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of said defendant and are not prejudiced against her, and affiant verily believes the same is the fact. That affiant verily believes and has no doubt it is the fact that a good lawful and unprejudiced jury, who have never heard the purported facts in this case, nor formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of this defendant can be easily secured in this county from entirely beyond the limits of Spokane Falls, to try this action.
Affiant further saith that
he has never heard of the
support of charge against
the defendant stated on
page 2 of the affidavit
of T.C. Griffitts, relating
to murders committed by
defendant and affiant does
not believe such charges
could have been generally
circulated or he would
have been informed of the
same. That it is not
true that during the
examination of the defendant
the prosecuting attorney
denounced the class of
woman to which it was
stated the defendant belonged
nor that he denounced
the defendant save for
her acts and conduct
relating to the homicide
in question. That
all the facts relating to
the same were such as ordinarily
occur in debate
and argument in the
trial of a criminal case
and in this case such
denunciation of the
deceased by counsel for
the prisoner or in reply
to assertions
in favor of the defendant
and her conduct in the
matter of the homicide,
first made by counsel
for the defendant that
such examination in justice
court was held in a very
small room; that there
were not many present
at the examination, and
they principally idlers and
not a representative class
of our citizens.
That affiant has never heard or been informed of any desire or attempt by any one to employ any one to assist the prosecuting attorney in the prosecution of said defendant and if the same were true affiant would most certainly have been informed thereof.
That George M. Forster
mentioned in the affidavit
of T.C. Griffitts herein, appeared
and assisted the
prosecuting attorney in the
hearing on habeas corpus
at the special instance
and request of this affiant
for a retained and not
otherwise and that
affiant has paid said Forster
the sum of Twenty five
dollars from his
personal funds therefore
and that it is the bonafide
intention of this
affiant whenever he shall
be in more affluent circumstances
should that
ever happen, to inquire of
said Forster what his charges
are for said services and
to pay him the balance
due herein therefore from
the personal moneys of affiant
Affiant further says
that not.
S.C. Hyde
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of December A.D. 1886
D.A. Clement
Clerk
Filed Dec. 11, 1886
D.A. Clement
Clerk
