State v. Ramstad

Decision Date09 January 1925
Docket Number18603.
PartiesSTATE v. RAMSTAD.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Bell, Judge.

J. A Ramstad was charged with the crime of multilating a record appertaining to his office as County Treasurer. From an order sustaining a demurrer to information and dismissing the action, the State appeals, and the defendant cross-appeals from that part of the judgment dismissing the action without prejudice, and from an order overruling his demurrer on other grounds. Judgment sustaining the demurrer reversed; in other respects, affirmed.

C. T Roscoe and John C. Richards, both of Everett, Or., for the state.

O. T Webb, W. A. Johnson, and Coleman & Fogarty, all of Everett, for respondent.

PEMBERTON J.

The respondent is charged by information with the crime of mutilating a record appertaining to his office as county treasurer; the charging part of the information being as follows:

'He, the said J. A. Ramstad, on or about the 24th day of July, 1923, at the county of Snohomish, state of Washington, was the duly elected, qualified, and acting county treasurer in and for the county of Snohomish, state of Washington. That as such county treasurer it became and then and there was the duty of J. A. Ramstad to enter, make record of, and collect the taxes due said Snohomish county, state of Washington, and keep the records, files, papers, and receipts of said county treasurer's office, and that said J. A. Ramstad in the county of Snohomish, state of Washington, on or about the 24th day of July, 1923, and while acting as treasurer of said Snohomish county, state of Washington, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously mutilate, destroy, conceal, erase, obliterate, and falsify said records and papers appertaining to his office of county treasurer, in and for said Snohomish county, state of Washington, by then and there falsely issuing and delivering to the firm of Walker & Peterson, personal property tax receipt No. 27838 of said county treasurer's office, in the sum of $1,732.33, for personal taxes for the years 1921 and 1922, due from said firm to said Snohomish county, state of Washington, and failing to account for and turn into the said county treasury the sum due for said personal tax due from said firm of Walker & Peterson, and by then and there falsely entering payment of the sum of $1,732.33 in personal property tax roll of said county treasurer's office, and particularly the personal property tax account of said firm of Walker & Peterson in said personal property tax roll, and by then and there mutilating, erasing, altering duplicate personal tax receipt No. 27838 of said treasurer's office, and by thereafter destroying, or concealing duplicate real estate tax No. 27839 of said treasurer's office, and falsifying said record by placing said mutilated, erased and altered duplicate personal property tax receipt No. 27838 in the place of said duplicate real estate tax receipt No. 27839 in the records of said treasurer's office, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Washington.'

The respondent demurred to the information on all the statutory grounds. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that the information does not substantially comply with the statute of the state of Washington, dismissed the action without prejudice, and overruled the demurrer on the other grounds. The appellant appeals from the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action. Respondent appeals from that part of the judgment dismissing the action without prejudice, and from the order overruling the demurrer of respondent on the other grounds.

It is the contention of respondent that more than one crime is charged; that the facts charged do not constitute a crime and that the information contains matter which if true would constitute a legal bar to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Jackson v. Mitsui & Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1925
    ... ... We have ... held that the rights, duties, and obligations of the ... steamship company in a case brought in the state court are ... governed by the rules and principles of the admiralty law ... Heino v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, 116 Wash. 148, 205 ... ...
  • State v. Reese
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 30, 1974
    ...a charge may include elements which are not subject to attack. State v. Miller, 71 Wash.2d 143, 426 P.2d 986 (1967); State v. Ramstad, 132 Wash. 406, 232 P. 349 (1925). The word 'take' is one of common usage and enjoys a commonly recognized meaning among people of common intelligence. State......
  • State v. Miller
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1967
    ...the gun does not need to be established. See RCW 10.37.056(4); State v. Stevens, 41 Wash.2d 694, 251 P.2d 163 (1952); State v. Ramstad, 132 Wash. 406, 232 P. 349 (1925). There was no necessity to introduce the gun in Finding no merit in any of the contentions urged by the defendant, as appe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT